Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:59 am

AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:07 pm You cannot fully describe parts either, only selected aspects.
Take a billards ball, you can describe certain aspects, eg its weight, diameter etc but you can never describe it fully as it itself becomes a “new” whole. In essence, every part is the whole and can therefore never be fully described.

Go smaller. Quantum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

We cannot measure both position and velocity. But we don't have to. Entanglement guarantees that two things are "the same" (opposite, but the same).

In an entangled pair the one describes the other. Now if you mean "description in English" - yeah Good luck.

Describe the ''we'' doing the measuring....describe the measurer?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:17 pm Describe the ''we'' doing the measuring....describe the measurer?

What description would satisfy you?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:19 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:17 pm Describe the ''we'' doing the measuring....describe the measurer?

What description would satisfy you?

There is your answer.

More questions.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:23 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:19 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:17 pm Describe the ''we'' doing the measuring....describe the measurer?

What description would satisfy you?

There is your answer.

More questions.

.

No. You made a statement/request and then you put an exclamation mark at the end of it. I assumed that you did that in error.

I am asking you a clarifying question. What description would satisfy you?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:40 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:23 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:19 pm
What description would satisfy you?

There is your answer.

More questions.

.

No. You made a statement/request and then you put an exclamation mark at the end of it. I assumed that you did that in error.

I am asking you a clarifying question. What description would satisfy you?

No, it's not a exclamation mark, it's a question mark.

Describe the 'we' doing the measuring?



.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:02 pm No, it's not a exclamation mark, it's a question mark.

My bad. Long day.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:02 pm Describe the 'we' doing the measuring?

You are doing it again though. I am not sure why you are putting an exclamation mark at the end of this.

What answer/response do you expect from me?

Here is a description: 42. Does it satisfy you? If not - why not?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:06 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:02 pm No, it's not a exclamation mark, it's a question mark.

My bad. Long day.

Stay focused.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:06 pmWhat answer/response do you expect from me?

You speak of a ''me'' doing the measuring, do you know what or who ''me'' is? can you decribe this ''me'' that is doing the measuring?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:06 pmHere is a description: 42. Does it satisfy you? If not - why not?

So here you are saying 42 is doing the measuring. Excellent, that makes perfect sense.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 pm You speak of a ''me'' doing the measuring, do you know what or who ''me'' is? can you decribe this ''me'' that is doing the measuring?

What does knowing what or who 'ME' is have to do with measuring?

I have measuring tape - I measure.


You asked this question: Describe the 'we' doing the measuring?
I described the 'we' doing the measuring as 42.

What answer did you expect?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:16 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 pm You speak of a ''me'' doing the measuring, do you know what or who ''me'' is? can you decribe this ''me'' that is doing the measuring?

What does knowing what or who 'ME' is have to do with measuring?

I have measuring tape - I measure.

No, the tape measure is measuring...who is reading what the tape measure is informing? is the reader the tape measure?

Can tape measures read information?

.

Logic wrote:
And yet we expect axioms to remain fixed

If the map is to be useful it needs to resemble the teritory in SOME way

Axioms are not set in stone but subject to revision whenever new knowledge is discovered
Axioms set in stone are dogmatic and useless because they cannot be altered in any way

Of course the map must represent the territory as accurately as possible but it is still merely an approximation and
so should never be mistaken for the territory itself because despite the similarity they are entirely different things

Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.

Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:10 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.

Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.

How do you know? Were you there when he died?

I.m late to this discussion so I reply to the OP.

You cannot think conceptually without language(or some symbolic system), for to think conceptually is to think about something that is not available to immediate sensory perception.

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:10 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.

Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.

How do you know? Were you there when he died?

At his bedside.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:18 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:10 pm

Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.

How do you know? Were you there when he died?

At his bedside.

Prove it.