Wood and Chair question

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
If you are saying that Egyptians practised some type of existentialism then I will take your word for that.
Not quite. I'm suggesting that all life and ancient humans took existence as being axiomatic because natural languages take existence as a given. The human version of this language failed 4000 years ago and eventually Des Cartes codified the new perspective in language. There's nothing "wrong" with this new perspective or the way it has been stated in language but it is "limiting" in the sense it is a single perspective of something hugely complex. From this perspective we see what we know rather than the reality. From this perspective we can't see the science that gave rise to agriculture and cities. We have lost sight of our own history. It is a poor perspective from which to understand nature, the meaning of science, or nature of life. It is very good for learning the "rules" of nature and superb for learning how to apply these rules for our own needs. Technology exists in a vacuum of understanding.

I believe we can have our cake and eat it too.

I'll try to get back to specifics of your posts later.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Melchior »

Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals

Nope, neither has 'intrinsic existence'. What we call a 'chair' is merely wood pieces assembled and shaped for our use. The wood came from trees which grew, and then we cut the trees down and used the pieces. There is no difference between the wood in the tree and the wood in the chair (except that the wood in the chair is no longer living).
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
If you are saying that Egyptians practised some type of existentialism then I will take your word for that.
Not quite. I'm suggesting that all life and ancient humans took existence as being axiomatic because natural languages take existence as a given. The human version of this language failed 4000 years ago and eventually Des Cartes codified the new perspective in language. There's nothing "wrong" with this new perspective or the way it has been stated in language but it is "limiting" in the sense it is a single perspective of something hugely complex. From this perspective we see what we know rather than the reality. From this perspective we can't see the science that gave rise to agriculture and cities. We have lost sight of our own history. It is a poor perspective from which to understand nature, the meaning of science, or nature of life. It is very good for learning the "rules" of nature and superb for learning how to apply these rules for our own needs. Technology exists in a vacuum of understanding.

I believe we can have our cake and eat it too.

I'll try to get back to specifics of your posts later.

Now I see what you are getting at in relation to Descartes and science. Descartes pioneered a top-down approach to science. In other words, he believed the deductive method of reasoning was the best way to apply science. Opposed to this idea was Bacon who advocated a bottom-up approach. In other words, Bacon was saying that science should be grounded in knowledge gained from sense experience. Science does use both methods but it is not correct to say modern science is based on Descartes' deductive methodology. In fact it could not possibly be correct.

Our modern science legacy is at least- if not more the result of people such as Bacon, Hume and Newton. If you are going to blame someone for the experiential perspective blame these three guys.

P.S.

His name is Rene Descartes, not Desmond Cartes
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

His name is Rene Descartes, not Desmond Cartes
Thanks. I don't remember where I got the other spelling. It might be hard to change. I just recently discovered that like 15% of older adults I spell "dilemna" wrong. I might not even try to change this. Nobody seems to know where the wrong spelling came from but I'm still checking older dictionaries.

Descartes.
Now I see what you are getting at in relation to Descartes and science. Descartes pioneered a top-down approach to science. In other words, he believed the deductive method of reasoning was the best way to apply science. Opposed to this idea was Bacon who advocated a bottom-up approach. In other words, Bacon was saying that science should be grounded in knowledge gained from sense experience. Science does use both methods but it is not correct to say modern science is based on Descartes' deductive methodology. In fact it could not possibly be correct.

Our modern science legacy is at least- if not more the result of people such as Bacon, Hume and Newton. If you are going to blame someone for the experiential perspective blame these three guys.
I know Descartes' thinking doesn't underlie science but it does very much underlie philosophy and a lot of western thought. In a sense it is metaphysical as well since science was formalized by those who were familiar with Descartes. Metaphysics is so basic that it might not matter very much. The problem isn't metaphysics anyway but rather the misapplication of scientific knowledge caused by moern language and best expressed by Descartes. It's language that makes people extrapolate results beyond the limits of the definitions and axioms. It's language that provides a perspective from which only what you know can be seen. It's language which necessitates a science based on experiment rather than logic and the math which is a sort of quantified logic. We have no choice in this any longer because the complexity of our knowledge is far too great to use a metaphysical language. Other life has simple enough knowledge that metaphysical language works. Humans do not any longer.

You're right that bottom up and top down reasoning are both used in science. Thi is because even with all the flaws in modern language most of them disappear when used as the basis of thought. Individuals are the only source of thought and we each know what we mean whenever we think of a term. We can think clearly enough but then we only think others understand us and that we understand them. No matter how carefully you state a thought others will mangle it by having slightly different definitions for the words and then they deconstruct it in search of meaning. They always get it wrong because there are a virtually infinite number of interpretations for any utterance. Each person walks away with a different understanding but still believes everyone understands it the same way. I'm struck by the fact that almost without exception that people will misstate natural phenomena. Even scientists are typically wrong. Some of this is just colloquialisms like referring to "sunrise" rather than the earth turning to reveal the sun but it goes much further. This manifests in many ways that shows they don't understand the forces at play like the misoperation of machinery.

I believe all of this is related to the problems in modern language. It's very difficult to keep all the terms and knowledge in mind as we make the mental connections to act and speak. Ideas that start out as reflective of reality get mangled before they reach our tongues or hands. This was the strenght of metaphysical language. You had to keep all of reality in mind to be understood or to understand. There are tricks that can be used to help the listener follow but you couldn't follow if the speaker knew more about reality than you.

If people recognized the specific weaknesses in language they could be mitigated but no one seems to notice. Each person takes his own meaning but doesn't see that a message relayed becomes distorted. This shows how meaning is highly ephemeral in modern language.
Last edited by cladking on Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote: What you mean to say is, "there are instances whereby words can be open to interpretation"
Each word has many definitions as well as many connotations dependent on the percieved definition. Words take their meaning from context and the listener assigns these meaning on an ongoing basis as he listens or reads. Even the speaker might not know quite where a sentence is going and end up almost anywhere. The end of a sentence may not have as much bearing on the beginning as it should.
There isn't an infinite number of sciences that one can define. It is a finite number. Probably about a dozen or so.
I believe I can identify two major types; experimental and logical. No doubt there are at least several subtypes and there may be other major types. It's something I've put little thought into so far.
You are saying nothing new under the sun. In fact you provide the solution to you own problem, almost in the same breath as it were. Yes I agree, most people who are educated in Newtonian physics understand what Newton was on about. So let the car enthusiast and the preacher get educated in classical physics.
I don't disagree but car enthusiasts can say things that are correct and apropos and still be misunderstood by the scientist. We can't all be a specialist in everything.
When Ed Witten and Brian Greene talk about classical cars they may well have many misunderstandings leading to gobbledygook. However ,when they come to talk about string theory no such problem exists.
I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps p[eople sit up and take notice but this hardly proves them correct. I know nothing at all but can "promise" you that it will never be proven that there are an infinite number of earths with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps. There can't be an infinite number of anything real. Reality requires an origin for all real things and there's just not enough room in the universe for anything infinite. Mathmatical models, ideas, numbers, points, etc can be infinite but not reality.

"All that I have, up to that moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I receive from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes mislead us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have been once deceived"
"I think therefore I am" is far more dependent on the senses and the beliefs of others and their senses than our own perceptions. This is because thinking requires language which he had forgotten he even learned. All the beliefs in the world are acquired with language. Some we adopt or are spoon fed and the others we reject. We are a product of language and can't see it because of the perspective of language. He looked out on the world through Descartes' eyes never realizing the information from these eyes was being processed by thought. He saw what he knew like the sun going down without realizing he learned the words on his parents' knee. It was his parent's senses with which he saw the sun set even though it was really the earth spinning . The apple didn't simply fall and hit Newton but rather it had a complex trajectory through space as it fell on the moving earth when Newton's head intervened. The reality is that Descartes thought which merely showed he had language; a language he gained through his senses. He existed even before he had language. Life is a product of language for most practical purposes.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: What you mean to say is, "there are instances whereby words can be open to interpretation"
Each word has many definitions as well as many connotations dependent on the percieved definition. Words take their meaning from context and the listener assigns these meaning on an ongoing basis as he listens or reads. Even the speaker might not know quite where a sentence is going and end up almost anywhere. The end of a sentence may not have as much bearing on the beginning as it should.
There isn't an infinite number of sciences that one can define. It is a finite number. Probably about a dozen or so.
I believe I can identify two major types; experimental and logical. No doubt there are at least several subtypes and there may be other major types. It's something I've put little thought into so far.
You are saying nothing new under the sun. In fact you provide the solution to you own problem, almost in the same breath as it were. Yes I agree, most people who are educated in Newtonian physics understand what Newton was on about. So let the car enthusiast and the preacher get educated in classical physics.
I don't disagree but car enthusiasts can say things that are correct and apropos and still be misunderstood by the scientist. We can't all be a specialist in everything.
When Ed Witten and Brian Greene talk about classical cars they may well have many misunderstandings leading to gobbledygook. However ,when they come to talk about string theory no such problem exists.
I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps p[eople sit up and take notice but this hardly proves them correct. I know nothing at all but can "promise" you that it will never be proven that there are an infinite number of earths with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps. There can't be an infinite number of anything real. Reality requires an origin for all real things and there's just not enough room in the universe for anything infinite. Mathmatical models, ideas, numbers, points, etc can be infinite but not reality.

"All that I have, up to that moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I receive from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes mislead us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have been once deceived"
"I think therefore I am" is far more dependent on the senses and the beliefs of others and their senses than our own perceptions. This is because thinking requires language which he had forgotten he even learned. All the beliefs in the world are acquired with language. Some we adopt or are spoon fed and the others we reject. We are a product of language and can't see it because of the perspective of language. He looked out on the world through Descartes' eyes never realizing the information from these eyes was being processed by thought. He saw what he knew like the sun going down without realizing he learned the words on his parents' knee. It was his parent's senses with which he saw the sun set even though it was really the earth spinning . The apple didn't simply fall and hit Newton but rather it had a complex trajectory through space as it fell on the moving earth when Newton's head intervened. The reality is that Descartes thought which merely showed he had language; a language he gained through his senses. He existed even before he had language. Life is a product of language for most practical purposes.
You are correct. "I think therefore I am" is a matter for debate and discussion.I am not denying this and scholars in the field are not denying this. However, there is general agreement as to what Descartes was on about. The disagreement comes about in terms of the correctness of his theory. If you want to criticise Descartes, then fair enough, but you need to be in a position to understand what he is saying in first instance before you can offer constructive criticism. Perhaps then we can discuss the merits or otherwise of this particular post.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps p[eople sit up and take notice but this hardly proves them correct. I know nothing at all but can "promise" you that it will never be proven that there are an infinite number of earths with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps. There can't be an infinite number of anything real. Reality requires an origin for all real things and there's just not enough room in the universe for anything infinite. Mathmatical models, ideas, numbers, points, etc can be infinite but not reality.
I couldn't agree more. In fact I think you are being a bit restrained. String theory is complete and utter bollocks in my opinion. If you read my above post you might see why your statement is more than likely true but completely beside the point.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
cladking wrote:
I couldn't agree more. In fact I think you are being a bit restrained. String theory is complete and utter bollocks in my opinion. If you read my above post you might see why your statement is more than likely true but completely beside the point.
Scientists are people and modern people are trained in and learn to think using modern language. Our perspectives are to a large extent based in language. It is based on centuries of scientific learning and/ or religious doctrine exposed to centuries of scientific knowledge. Language has simply developed in tandem with accumulated knowledge even though it doesn't reflect that learning except in vocabulary. Most individuals have no real difficulty thinking in modern language. I believe many of us even use short cuts that mimic metaphysical language. To a large extent I believe intuitive thinking is a trick we learn that operates by mimicing aspects of natural metaphysical language. The real problem is in communication which we just don't notice normally breaks down. This this why questions about wood and chairs or "what is the meaning of life" even exist. We don't take reality as being axiomatic so when equations imply an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps we investigate further and foist it off as science. The concept simply flies in the face of all basic laws of existence and reality but can't be excluded by scientific research so is considered plausible.

Modern language is symbolic and takes nothing as a given. Most of us have at least a little training in science so we accept these mathmatical and definitional assumptions as being axiomatic in the real world but this isn't correct either. They are simply axioms and definitions on which modern science is based and are fundamental to the meaning of scientific knowledge. They have no greater reality. Just as numbers don't really exist neither does a coordinate system or philosophical concepts based on science.

We don't see a problem with any of this because we greatly overestimate human knowledge gleaned from science which is caused by the perspective of language. We believe we know just about everything because everywhere we look we see what we know and what's familiar while everything else is outside even our vision. We are acting on very limited information while transforming language and ourselves into the tiny sliver of reality that we can see.

Just as the ancient languge failed, I believe our modern language will fail as well. I think that given enough time we'll have a sort of hybrid language that is used at least in the sciences and will eventually become standard across the board.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
cladking wrote:
I couldn't agree more. In fact I think you are being a bit restrained. String theory is complete and utter bollocks in my opinion. If you read my above post you might see why your statement is more than likely true but completely beside the point.
Scientists are people and modern people are trained in and learn to think using modern language. Our perspectives are to a large extent based in language. It is based on centuries of scientific learning and/ or religious doctrine exposed to centuries of scientific knowledge. Language has simply developed in tandem with accumulated knowledge even though it doesn't reflect that learning except in vocabulary. Most individuals have no real difficulty thinking in modern language. I believe many of us even use short cuts that mimic metaphysical language. To a large extent I believe intuitive thinking is a trick we learn that operates by mimicing aspects of natural metaphysical language. The real problem is in communication which we just don't notice normally breaks down. This this why questions about wood and chairs or "what is the meaning of life" even exist. We don't take reality as being axiomatic so when equations imply an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps we investigate further and foist it off as science. The concept simply flies in the face of all basic laws of existence and reality but can't be excluded by scientific research so is considered plausible.

Modern language is symbolic and takes nothing as a given. Most of us have at least a little training in science so we accept these mathmatical and definitional assumptions as being axiomatic in the real world but this isn't correct either. They are simply axioms and definitions on which modern science is based and are fundamental to the meaning of scientific knowledge. They have no greater reality. Just as numbers don't really exist neither does a coordinate system or philosophical concepts based on science.

We don't see a problem with any of this because we greatly overestimate human knowledge gleaned from science which is caused by the perspective of language. We believe we know just about everything because everywhere we look we see what we know and what's familiar while everything else is outside even our vision. We are acting on very limited information while transforming language and ourselves into the tiny sliver of reality that we can see.

Just as the ancient languge failed, I believe our modern language will fail as well. I think that given enough time we'll have a sort of hybrid language that is used at least in the sciences and will eventually become standard across the board.
Yes, that's correct we don't take reality as being axiomatic. At least we shouldn't.

Yes, we can look at languages in terms of symbolism. language does change over time so I would you are correct in terms of language taking nothing as a given.

Yes, overall we do not assume there is a greater reality.

Cladking, there is a very good reason for all of this. Do you know the reason?
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Cladking, there is a very good reason for all of this. Do you know the reason?
I think there are several reasons but chief among them is that no one can directly experience reality. There's also a problem with reality being experienced largely as a social thing rather than individually but all thought to understand and discover nature (reality) must occur on the individual level. Even though reality doesn't change social conventions would impart all sorts of oscillations and trends to it. The ability to make progress would be severely limited.

All of these problems are directly and largely caused by modern language. The first one is the only one that isn't soley language but much of the problems caused by taking reality as axiomatic are still related to language. The inability to communicate scientific results, for instance, would by itself tend to stifle progress. The tendency of scientific fields to veer off course with societal and language changes would still exist as well.

Science is "nailed down to reality" through its definitions and axioms as well as the result of experiment (theory). This keeps it dependent on and reflective of reality but our interpretation of results is still highly dependent on societal and language issues. Worse, it is dependent on something we can't see because of our perspective; language. We simply don't see things we don't expect or understand. We see what we know and we interpret what we see as everything there is. We think we know everything there is. There are severe problems and gigantic threats caused by this and nearly as seriously science seems to have run aground having made very little progress since the 1920's as engineering is catching up with theory. Even if definitive signs of progress appear in the future we still are using the power of science (knowledge) unwisely and dangerously. These problems aren't cause by whether or not reality even exists but by language and our inability to understand the nature of science and man.

I believe it's now possible to reinvent the ancient science that built the pyramid and use it for our own purposes. Obviously we don't need more pyramids but it can operate in tandem with experimental science and they can provide check and balance for one another. But the point here isn't science or human understanding but rather language. I believe language needs some standardization to fix its weaknesses in communication, and to a much lesser extent, fascilitate individual thought. "Thought" varies a lot in individuals but I seriously doubt that separating the concept of "wood" from "chair" will impede anyone's creativity or thought processes. As a rule I think normalizing, standardizing, and rationalizing language should be geared primarily toward improving communication since this is its primary weakness.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Cladking, there is a very good reason for all of this. Do you know the reason?
I think there are several reasons but chief among them is that no one can directly experience reality. There's also a problem with reality being experienced largely as a social thing rather than individually but all thought to understand and discover nature (reality) must occur on the individual level. Even though reality doesn't change social conventions would impart all sorts of oscillations and trends to it. The ability to make progress would be severely limited.

All of these problems are directly and largely caused by modern language. The first one is the only one that isn't soley language but much of the problems caused by taking reality as axiomatic are still related to language. The inability to communicate scientific results, for instance, would by itself tend to stifle progress. The tendency of scientific fields to veer off course with societal and language changes would still exist as well.

Science is "nailed down to reality" through its definitions and axioms as well as the result of experiment (theory). This keeps it dependent on and reflective of reality but our interpretation of results is still highly dependent on societal and language issues. Worse, it is dependent on something we can't see because of our perspective; language. We simply don't see things we don't expect or understand. We see what we know and we interpret what we see as everything there is. We think we know everything there is. There are severe problems and gigantic threats caused by this and nearly as seriously science seems to have run aground having made very little progress since the 1920's as engineering is catching up with theory. Even if definitive signs of progress appear in the future we still are using the power of science (knowledge) unwisely and dangerously. These problems aren't cause by whether or not reality even exists but by language and our inability to understand the nature of science and man.

I believe it's now possible to reinvent the ancient science that built the pyramid and use it for our own purposes. Obviously we don't need more pyramids but it can operate in tandem with experimental science and they can provide check and balance for one another. But the point here isn't science or human understanding but rather language. I believe language needs some standardization to fix its weaknesses in communication, and to a much lesser extent, fascilitate individual thought. "Thought" varies a lot in individuals but I seriously doubt that separating the concept of "wood" from "chair" will impede anyone's creativity or thought processes. As a rule I think normalizing, standardizing, and rationalizing language should be geared primarily toward improving communication since this is its primary weakness.

The problem is we don't know what reality is. There is no single formulation of a metaphysical reality that we can all agree upon. There are almost as many metaphysical explanations for reality as there are metaphysical philosophers. Each has their own explanation and the logical process to back their explanation. There is no possible way to know who has the correct explanation. In fact they all could be incorrect.

If you can tell me the correct metaphysical explanation that encompasses reality then I will be eternally grateful
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
If you can tell me the correct metaphysical explanation that encompasses reality then I will be eternally grateful
This might be much easier than you think.

Just to be clear it should be noted that I only comprehend one definition of "metaphysics" and use it exclusively. It is the axioms and definitions that underlie a science. Our metaphysics is not exclusionary because its inventors were aware of the fundamental issues with existence and human existence and human perception. They attempted to factor out preconceptions and bad observation and largely succeeded by making reality itself as a check on results. There's no problem with modern metaphysics except that everyone seems to have lost sight of it so they have lost sight of the meaning of experimental results. This is why silly and pop science flourish in modern times. If you attach the word science to anything people will believe it and if you attach phrases like elegant math to something scientists will believe it (pending experimental proof). Nobody seems to even notice we still don't even know what gravity is.

I'm hardly suggesting we jettison modern science and technology. I'm suggesting that we add to it a new science with a different metaphysics as a check and as a possible means to get us out of ruts and tough spots in human progress. More importantly I'm suggesting that this new addendum to modern science would necessarily return a lot of practical results about human life and fascilitate understanding of metaphysics while better allowing us to see how to apply scientific knowledge and technology to human needs. One of the greatest human needs just happens to be better communication because modern language simultaneously sucks and blows at this job. The benefits of better communication can hardly be exaggerated. All human progress is the result of individual effort but all individual effort is a product of human progress (language). Better language means better progress.

I have not put much thought into formalizing natural metaphysics like ancient people used. But a few things off the top of my head is first and foremost is a different perspective; that realty exists and our job is to see and then understand it. Reality is what eats you for lunch. It's the cliff you fall from. It's the baby your wife presents you with. Reality is neither negative nor positive but it exists. By learning to understand it we can improve our chances of survival and weal.

There are numerous axioms that can be adopted but each of these will need to be properly defined in either scientific language or, better, new language which employs only a single definition for each word. Yes, evolution of terms can't be stopped but it can be drastically slowed while means are sought to stop or counteract it.

Everything has a beginning and comes from something else.
If A preceeds B and B preceeds C then A preceeded C.
No two things are identical nor can occupy the same space at the same time.

Obviously we'll start ahead of the first people to use such a metaphysics because modern science is more extensive and its knowledge will apply to the invention of the metaphysics. Scientific knowledge is real from its perspective. Even knowledge that can't be applied to the metaphysics is still real.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

double post
Last edited by Ginkgo on Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Just to be clear it should be noted that I only comprehend one definition of "metaphysics" and use it exclusively. It is the axioms and definitions that underlie a science.
From the onset your understanding of science is not correct. Science doesn't start out with a axiom of choice, as can be seen with Descartes' "top down approach" Science always uses a "bottom up" approach as a starting point. Roughly speaking we could say that the axiom of choice in science is an inductive one. Strictly speaking there are no inductive axioms. This was explained in previous posts.
cladking wrote: There are numerous axioms that can be adopted but each of these will need to be properly defined in either scientific language or, better, new language which employs only a single definition for each word. Yes, evolution of terms can't be stopped but it can be drastically slowed while means are sought to stop or counteract it.

Everything has a beginning and comes from something else.
If A preceeds B and B preceeds C then A preceeded C.
No two things are identical nor can occupy the same space at the same time.

Obviously we'll start ahead of the first people to use such a metaphysics because modern science is more extensive and its knowledge will apply to the invention of the metaphysics. Scientific knowledge is real from its perspective. Even knowledge that can't be applied to the metaphysics is still real.
What you are proposing here is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a metaphysical ontology.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/identity_ ... scernibles

It is actually harder than you think.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
From the onset your understanding of science is not correct. Science doesn't start out with a axiom of choice, as can be seen with Descartes' "top down approach" Science always uses a "bottom up" approach as a starting point. Roughly speaking we could say that the axiom of choice in science is an inductive one. Strictly speaking there are no inductive axioms. This was explained in previous posts.
Let me get back to this. I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're saying.
What you are proposing here is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a metaphysical ontology.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/identity_ ... scernibles

It is actually harder than you think.
What I am proposing is a science with a distinctly different metaphysics than is used by modern science. This new science is a different sort of tool so will produce different but equally correct and equally reflective of reality results as modern science. This isn't really a new science because humans used it until about 4000 years ago, I believe, and all animals (all life) other than humans still uses it today.

I am not suggesting that I can prove no two things are identical. Rather I am suggesting that no two real things can be identical is axiomatic. One electron is different than the next. It not only has a different history and a different position but it has different characteristics. Waves, numbers, forces, ideas, etc are not things but are events or processes that can affect things. Wood can not be a chair and a chair can not be wood but wood can be made into a chair and a chair can be made of wood. No two chairs can be identical and no two pieces of wood are identical. One chair might break if you sit down on it too hard and another made in the same factory using the same process and wood from the same tree might not break. One side of the tree grew in the sun and the other side in the shade. This is the nature of reality which is also axiomatic.
Post Reply