Philosophy Now Forum

Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

If philosophy is the activity of drawing fundamental distinctions, and if the possible/impossible distinction is seen as a fundamental distinction.

Then you are thinking like David Deutsch

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

To be an empiricist is to insist that everything humans ever experience is in the empirical domain. Including ideas! Including Pure reason. Including feelings, perceptions.

Which amounts to the fact that you can't possibly give me an example of anything that you haven't experienced.

Verificationism is a constraint upon empiricism. There's no way I could ever verify that you are experiencing hunger, thirst or love.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 9:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

To be an empiricist is to insist that everything humans ever experience is in the empirical domain. Including ideas! Including Pure reason. Including feelings, perceptions.

Which amounts to the fact that you can't possibly give me an example of anything that you haven't experienced.

Verificationism is a constraint upon empiricism. There's no way I could ever verify that you are experiencing hunger, thirst or love.

Not sure where you get your definition.

My definition is the typical one, i.e.

• The term "empirical" comes from Greek ἐμπειρία empeiría, i.e. 'experience'. In this context, it is usually understood as what is observable, in contrast to unobservable or theoretical objects.
  
  Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empirical
-derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
-depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or -theory, especially as in medicine.
-provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:34 am Not sure where you get your definition.

My definition is the typical one, i.e.

• The term "empirical" comes from Greek ἐμπειρία empeiría, i.e. 'experience'. In this context, it is usually understood as what is observable, in contrast to unobservable or theoretical objects.
  
  Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empirical
-derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
-depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or -theory, especially as in medicine.
-provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Way to miss the point Mr Typical Definition.

Do you experience thurst, hunger and love? I do. I can totally verify (and therefore prove to myself) that I am experiencing thirst, hunger and love. Obviously, because I am experiencing them.

You too can prove/verify such things. You ask me a question: Are you thirsty? And I answer "Yes.".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically,defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm ...anything is possible.

This might be the ultimate expression of human intellectual folly.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

The universe is infinite therefore anything is possible. By waiting long enough you cannot reach an infinite future therefore anything is not possible if you wait enough long.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

Empirical is defined as based on or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

But the theory of evolution did not come directly from observation and experience but it came from observing different similar animals and deducing that they had evolved because of different conditions. Conceptual can become theory but it does not necessarily become empirical.

I do not think that DNA which is very complex, came about by random events but that does not prove God.

Besides Göbekli Tepe, the Anasazi that disappeared and the stone work at Cusco are observed but not explained.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .

Is this your personal made-up definition of what a god is? What exactly is, "cosmic order?" How is it, "axiomatic?"

It sounds like you just string some words together and think they actually mean something. Must be philosophy-speak or academia-speak, both of which are only remotely related to cogent human language.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .

Whilst the idea of God may be axiomatic to theists only, i.e. confined to theology or theism, it cannot be conflated with the empirical.
Whatever is deemed to be empirical must satisfy empirical conditions, i.e. observable and verifiable empirically.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.

It is not possible that anything in the past ever be different than it was. It is not possible for anything to both be and not be. It is not possible that you have any idea of what you are talking about.

Einstein was right. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:25 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .

Is this your personal made-up definition of what a god is? What exactly is, "cosmic order?" How is it, "axiomatic?"

It sounds like you just string some words together and think they actually mean something. Must be philosophy-speak or academia-speak, both of which are only remotely related to cogent human language.

Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts.

If the empirical fact originates with one or more human minds then there is no need to presume there is any order of facts that transcends human minds.

Don't be rude when you reply to me.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:42 am
Yes, as long as that-whatever-is-possible is within the empirical domain, i.e. verifiable empirically.

Whatever is transcendentally outside the empirical domain cannot be empirically possible, e.g. the idea of God which is abstracted and concluded by Pure Reason only.

That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .

Whilst the idea of God may be axiomatic to theists only, i.e. confined to theology or theism, it cannot be conflated with the empirical.
Whatever is deemed to be empirical must satisfy empirical conditions, i.e. observable and verifiable empirically.

One presumes scientists do empirical observations and experiments, and also use maths and statistics to endorse their reasoning. Any scientist can have one of two attitudes to what he discovers empirically and deductively .

One attitude is that he has discovered a truth that was 'out there'; the other attitude is that he has originated (or invented) a truth.