LOL
Then you have no understanding of either science nor the universe.
And your reference to Kant is not relavant
And as I suspected there is very little point persuing your posts.
LOL
It depends what you mean by 'material'. Do you mean it in the philosophical sense of 'substance', some stuff with mechanical properties? I personally think Schrödinger was about right when he said "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." I suspect the same is true of consciousness.
"IT" - what ever "it" is does not depend on the meaning of material, as it is all inclusive, given the context.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:18 pmIt depends what you mean by 'material'. Do you mean it in the philosophical sense of 'substance', some stuff with mechanical properties? I personally think Schrödinger was about right when he said "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." I suspect the same is true of consciousness.
It's my thread, I'll put my head where I wish.
Indeed. In many cases a new paradigm completely demolishes an old one, because the model on which it is based is discovered to be demonstrably false. That is not always the case, and there are many instances where several competing paradigms account for the same data equally well. It is also worth noting whatMax Planck said: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
as I said above.
NOT just the "MYTH" as you suggested.because the model on which it is based is discovered to be demonstrably false.
Only at the periphery of science, as I already said.That is not always the case, and there are many instances where several competing paradigms account for the same data equally well.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Does HE mention "myths"?It is also worth noting whatMax Planck said: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
One more time:
While we're waiting for Sculptor to realise that a paradigm is not simply an hypothesis about the physical underpinning of a mathematical model, yer might enjoy this chat by Noam Chomsky who describes the state of science neatly and quite succinctly. Modern physics is based on concepts like force, energy, mass, field, gravity, spacetime; all of which are extrapolations from watching the behaviour 'physical' objects. 'Physical' itself is widely taken to mean something like 'material' or 'substantial', but for the purposes of physics just means something that can be observed. Modern physics wouldn't change at all if any of the terms were replaced with 'magic'. Anyway, here's Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVFBABFdLXE
Yes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.
Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pmYes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.
You two should read the article. Philosophy and science are done by people and people have all sorts of bonkers ideas. For a successful philosophy those ideas have to work in some intellectual or emotional way. Scientific ideas have to work in some practical way. In either case it makes fuck all difference whether the ideas bear any resemblance to reality.
Or you could just run along and come back when you know what you are talking about.uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:36 amYou two should read the article.