| Theoretical Philosophy » Randomness » 8/02/2016 8:12 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
Also related to this:
| Theoretical Philosophy » Randomness » 7/22/2016 5:12 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
iwpoe wrote:Has there ever been a case of a previous stochastic system being switched to a deterministic model?
Yes. Population growth was long thought to be a shochastic system, but after the advent of Chaos theory, it was shown that population growth is actually a deterministic system with extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Randomness » 7/22/2016 12:55 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
iwpoe wrote:
It would be interesting to me to know whether when something is declared a stochastic system in science if this is generally done without attempt at metaphysical import. Is it merely a matter of the model having predictive power or does one say *no, this really is done in a way that's in principle without reason*?
The former. Philosophically speaking, every physicist I've talked to is a strict determinist with a Parmenides theory of time, both of which are incompatible with true randomness existing.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Randomness » 7/21/2016 2:56 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
(1) Does randomness actually exist?
(2) Suppose we were to find some process in nature that were truly random. What effect would this have on how we think of causality?
| Theoretical Philosophy » The Potential Becoming Actual Spontaneously » 7/07/2016 10:55 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 4
-
iwpoe wrote:
What's the temptation to think this way?
Quantum mechanics.
Let's suppose we have a binary system {A, B}. The system can be entirely in state A, or entirely in state B, or in a linear combination of both states (called superposition). Sometimes, it appears that a system that is in superposition of both A and B can "collapse" for no apparent reason into one or the other state.
This seems at first to be a real nice physical model of "actuality" versus "potentiality," except for the spontaneous collapsing property.
Yes, I know that in theory, philosophy and physics are non-overlapping magisteria, but in practice, it's very difficult to clearly make out the borders.
| Theoretical Philosophy » The Potential Becoming Actual Spontaneously » 7/06/2016 4:43 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 4
-
Let X be some object that exists only potentially. Why kind of absurdities result if it becomes actual by itself without an external agent?
(No, I haven't read Aristotle because all English translations of his work are dense and annoying, even though Cicero is alleged to have once remarked that his prose is like a river of gold.)
EDIT: This should probably be moved to "Beginner's Questions." Sorry.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Convertibility of Virtues (Truth, Beauty, etc...) » 5/25/2016 11:19 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 1
-
According to classical metaphysics, truth is beauty is goodness etc... However, I can think of a counterexample to this.
That the Holocaust happened is a truth. However, there doesn't appear to be any beauty behind this fact. It's an ugly truth. So how can we know that the truth is, in fact, the same as beauty?
| Chit-Chat » Mystic experiences » 5/12/2016 4:20 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 8
-
In the Abrahamic religions, you are estranged from God. In Buddhism and some interpretations of Hinduism, you are estranged from a universal cosmic mind (and so actually isn't that different from the Abrahamic religions). In Shinto, which is really a term-of-art for the indigenous practices cultivated by the Japanese, you are estranged from a very conformist society. Seriously. If you understand the degree of paranoia fitting in plays in Japanese society, then it becomes very understandable how metaphysical salvation might be tied up with your role in society.
This is the most charitable interpretation I can give, unfortunately, without lying.
| Theoretical Philosophy » William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God? » 5/10/2016 4:55 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 337
-
KevinScharp wrote:Tomislav Ostojich wrote:KevinScharp wrote:
Ah! Fair enough. So, what's the argument supposed to be? X is transcendental; X admits of more or less; thus, X has a maximum. What's the justification here? Better yet, derive a contradiction for me from {X is transcendental, X admits of more or less; X has no maximum}.
If X is a non-empty set with a total order (presumably what is meant by "X admits of more or less"), then it is trivial to prove that X has a top element.
The positive integers are a non-empty set with a total order under "less than or equal to" (i.e., total, anti-symmetric, transitive), but they have no top element. Did you misspeak?
Oh shoot. You got me. Infinite sets break the logic.
| Theoretical Philosophy » William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God? » 5/09/2016 2:06 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 337
-
KevinScharp wrote:
Ah! Fair enough. So, what's the argument supposed to be? X is transcendental; X admits of more or less; thus, X has a maximum. What's the justification here? Better yet, derive a contradiction for me from {X is transcendental, X admits of more or less; X has no maximum}.
If X is a non-empty set with a total order (presumably what is meant by "X admits of more or less"), then it is trivial to prove that X has a top element.