Random Philosophical Thoughts

[PhroX]

All we are is dust in the wind dude

This is about all that I've understood so far in this thread...

 

[lovett]

However, you now assumed that "theoretical possible" means that we have theoretically the means to do so. What I meant with"theoretical possible" was that the occurrence of the consequence in itself is theoretically possible - i.e. doesn't violate any known natural law, while it may still be theoretically impossible for us to cause it - or even observe it. So the main issue seems to be that I didn't make my perspective clear...On the other hand I am under the impression that there is no law of nature establishing a limit to divide things, while natural law does limit our theoretic ability to cause it or even observe it.

Not quite. I still mean, theoretically possible insofar as 'possible given our laws of nature'. I am interpreting the Planck length as 'the smallest possible unit of length'. If that is correct, it seems nature is so constituted (via its laws) that we cannot divide this length by two. As much is tautological. It is not that we do not have the ability to cause or measure such a division; it is that nothing has the ability to cause such a division. The division is impossible.

We can divide a number that (at some point) refers to length infinitely. We can divide 'Ten' metres by two infinitely. But, and here's the interesting part, when it reaches such a value that further division will take it below 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres, further division will mean it no longer refers to a length. We can continue to divide the number, but the number will no longer refer to a length. That is because, if the Planck length is the smallest possible length, there are no length smaller than 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres and hence any number smaller than this cannot refer to any length (one can't refer to something that doesn't exist!). The illusion we can divide lengths infinitely arises from the fact that we can divide numbers infinitely and lengths are often referred to via numbers (although, actually quite rarely; long, short, tall, thin are much more common ways of describing length). We clearly miss the fact (after all, it is an empirical fact) that at a certain point those numbers can no longer refer to any length.

I can't get too into this theoretical stuff about whether objective reality exists, free will & all that airy stuff. Ultimately the answers to those questions are unknowable & do not affect day to day reality anyway.

What is fascinating here is that, whilst disparaging all 'this theoretical stuff' you make the incredibly ambitious claim that it is all unknowable. The extra-ordinary epistemological claim that every issue in, I assume, metaphysics and epistemology, is unresolvable. Startling how one who who claims complete disinterest has the confidence to make such an ambitious claim and thereby settle the aforementioned fields once and for all. It is not a claim many professional philosophers would feel confident in making...

Edit:

Space may stop somewhere but that's not important. It's the system of measurement itself which is infinite, in the sense that any unit of counting can be broken down into an infinite number of smaller sub-units.

It's like saying that space cannot be infinitely large - it must come to an end somewhere. But even if it does end somewhere, we can keep measuring to infinity, it's a property of the measurement system. Likewise, we can measure to the infinitely small even if space can't be divided beyond a certain minimal unit.

All measurements are essentially ratios which describe comparisons between two or more things. Once you abstract such a system of measurement or ratios, then infinitely large and infinitely small are analytically necessary.

Refer to my reply to Sill. The system of measurement is meant to be one which refers to actual lengths. It only refers to those lengths as long as those lengths actually or hypothetically exist. It no longer refers to those length if they do not actually or hypothetically exist, as is(as I'm understanding the physics) the case with lengths smaller than the Planck length.

Systems of measurements are based on mathematical systems. Namely, the mathematical system of real numbers. Real numbers can be divided (and expanded) infinitely. However, that does not entail that systems of measurement can be divided (or expanded? Interesting) infinitely. This is because, as mentioned, systems of measurements refer.

A rather colourful analogy (and not a particularly close one; don't take it too seriously) might be my ability to write posts in forums. This ability is based on sentences in the english language. Sentences in the English language can be expanded infinitely (through conjunctions), but this certainly does not entail that my ability to write posts on forums can be expanded infinitely; it is starkly limited.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Sorry, but you guys are filling this thread. I created another thread here.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Thanks!

 

[lovett]

You created a new thread because people were filling a thread on philosophical thoughts with too many philosophical thoughts?

Remarkable.

 

[Save_Ferris]

This thread was supposed to be on different ideas, and it came to talking about one idea, and other thoughts were lost in the discussion. I didn't want this to be a thread about one idea, so I created a new thread on it.

 

[Narz]

What is fascinating here is that, whilst disparaging all 'this theoretical stuff' you make the incredibly ambitious claim that it is all unknowable. The extra-ordinary epistemological claim that every issue in, I assume, metaphysics and epistemology, is unresolvable. Startling how one who who claims complete disinterest has the confidence to make such an ambitious claim and thereby settle the aforementioned fields once and for all. It is not a claim many professional philosophers would feel confident in making...

Maybe it's knowable. I don't see any of the discussion here getting any closer to an answer though. And again, it wouldn't effect any of our lives anyway, would it? If free will exists or it doesn't?

 

[warpus]

What about other, microscopic dimensions?

First show that they exist, then worry about the planck constant having different properties there.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

We couldn't though. There is a "smallest" unit of space that we wouldn't be able to divide in two.

Not quite. I still mean, theoretically possible insofar as 'possible given our laws of nature'. I am interpreting the Planck length as 'the smallest possible unit of length'.

I don't think this is a valid definition. The actual is to my knowledge "smallest measurable length". And I don't believe something can be divided by 2 indefinitely simply because we can do so with numbers. I believe so for the reasons I already explained: extrapolating and natural laws.
I mean look, just because we can only look that deep into space doesn't lead us to the spurious assumption that beyond there is a sudden wall of nothing. Likewise, I don't believe we should do so in this case.

This thread was supposed to be on different ideas, and it came to talking about one idea, and other thoughts were lost in the discussion. I didn't want this to be a thread about one idea, so I created a new thread on it.

You expect a thread about philosophical thoughts in OT to not get drawn into lengthy discussions about those thoughts?
I'll stay in this one, thank you

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How do you mean higher consciousness?

My definition would be something like: Higher truth your consciousness represents/ embodies higher it actualy is.
To give you an example: when you are full of anger or frustration thats one reality/truth and when you feel love for your dear ones that represents another.
The secret here lies in living more consciously so one can become master of its own consciousness. Or you could also say to have free acces to your own highest wisdom and willpower.

Well a good book will say new things to you as you evolve yourself. But I'd still rather be surrounded by wise friends than wise books. That said, fortunately I don't have to choose & books are more easily acquired than the company of people.

To have a wise friends is realy rare. But still one can learn from others and gets inspiration even though they may not be very wise. Usualy you can see that everyone has some quality(s) which you may lack or they have them in greater degree....

What books have you found especially transformative?

I have checked the first 3-4 books in your sig and I think I like them. Judging by these I would assume you are what I would call a seeker. I am myself interested in spirituality and therefore many of the books I read are written by spiritual masters or advanced seekers.

It's tough when you have responsibility. Sometimes I feel by giving to my daughter I enrich myself, other times I feel like I'm sacrificing my sleep & health & patience & burning myself out.

I think it should be mutual and well balanced give and take- that is unless one arrives at the point when one has the capacity to give unconditionaly and replenish the energy from around or within you.

 

[lovett]

I don't think this is a valid definition. The actual is to my knowledge "smallest measurable length". And I don't believe something can be divided by 2 indefinitely simply because we can do so with numbers. I believe so for the reasons I already explained: extrapolating and natural laws.
I mean look, just because we can only look that deep into space doesn't lead us to the spurious assumption that beyond there is a sudden wall of nothing. Likewise, I don't believe we should do so in this case.

I think we might equate the two. A metaphysics which said that things which are in principle impossible to measure do not exist is not implausible. Else, we could postulate an infinite number of immeasurable 'things', that exist nonetheless. Plausibly (in principle) measurability is one test of existence.

But I'm not entirely sure this step is necessary. If things smaller than a planck length are 'immeasurable' (which is precisely what your definition holds) it follows that no unit of measurement can refer to them. Units of measurement can only refer to measurable things. Hence, it follows no unit of measurement could refer to a length smaller than the planck length and thus one cannot divide units of measurement by two, infinitely.

Maybe it's knowable. I don't see any of the discussion here getting any closer to an answer though. And again, it wouldn't effect any of our lives anyway, would it? If free will exists or it doesn't?

You pick a rather unfortunate example; it does not make your case well.

If free will does not exist or is limited in some way than that affects our everyday moral judgments dramatically. To wit, most people believe that to be held responsible for an action one must have performed it freely. Moral responsibility is the basis of much punishment. If no one does any action freely (free will does not exist), no one is morally responsible for an action and thus no one is to be held responsible for any action. Thisbasis of punishment dissolves.

And don't say 'we could not do anything about it anyway, if we weren't free'. We couldn't freely choose to do anything about it, but certainly it would affect our day to day lives. It would change our behavior, albeit deterministically.

In general, abstract philosophical issues shed dramatic light on ethics and aesthetics. And these are the things great (perhaps, the greatest) importance in our day to day lives. Want to know if moral judgments are all relative, or mistaken? Better venture in to the metaphysical character of moral facts (if they have one) and the epistemology by which we could come to those facts. Want to know whether a virtuous life is the best life? Better analyse virtue and best, with the same tools of metaphysics and epistemology. Want to know if God exists? Humanities place in the universe? Whether life has meaning? If so, the frameworks developed in the abstract areas of philosophy (perhaps the most abstract of which is logic) will be of vital importance.

I certainly think these issues have an effect on our lives. I am surprised you do not.

And of course, even if they didn't it seems bizarre to ignore them, with the wave of a hand. Knowing the fundamental structure of the universe, in physical terms, might have no effect on my life. I would probably never employ knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or String Theory. It is fascinating, nonetheless. Knowledge like this is one of the things which make life valuable. But of course, what makes a life valuable might be another philosophical problem for which you have no time.

 

[Traitorfish]

And don't say 'we could not do anything about it anyway, if we weren't free'. We couldn't freely choose to do anything about it, but certainly it would affect our day to day lives. It would change our behavior, albeit deterministically.

Which is, in practice, the same thing as not changing it all. So that's kind of self-negating.

 

[lovett]

Which is, in practice, the same thing as not changing it all. So that's kind of self-negating.

Of course it isn't. Let's suppose the world in deterministic and this implies we have no free will. If we find this out, we stop all retributive punishment, and refrain from moral judgments. If we do not find this out, we (immorally) persist in retributive punishment and indulge in moral judgment.

Here, knowledge of whether have free will has a dramatic effect on our behavior. It has a dramatic effect on our day to day lives. Our lives are dramatically different after discovering we lack free will. If you can somehow gloss this as 'no change at all' I will be very surprised.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Plausibly (in principle) measurability is one test of existence.

It is a test of existence where we can be sure. And that's all. I am not saying we can be sure that space is infintely tiny (which really is what I meant in the first place - poor choice of words on my part, but not that poor, because infintely tiny space logical means space which can be divided by two indefinately).

But I'm not entirely sure this step is necessary. If things smaller than a planck length are 'immeasurable' (which is precisely what your definition holds) it follows that no unit of measurement can refer to them.

And that is where you are wrong. Of course we can assume a unit of measurement half the length of the Planck length. We just can't prove or disprove it for our physical limitations to look deeper. And when we can't prove or disprove something, the only means left to judge it is to look at what we can prove and extrapolate from there. You know, induction (I hope that is the right English term for the logical operation). And there nothing indicates that space can only be that tiny. Just as we can't prove or disprove God, but when we look at the things we can prove, nothing indicates that there is a God.
Of course, that also means that there is probably no practical use for anything more tiny than the Planck length. So it doesn't actually matter - except philosophy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course it isn't. Let's suppose the world in deterministic and this implies we have no free will. If we find this out, we stop all retributive punishment, and refrain from moral judgments. If we do not find this out, we (immorally) persist in retributive punishment and indulge in moral judgment.

If we don't have free will, then we aren't capable of knowing whether or not we have free will, let alone acting on it. Any changes that appeared to occur would in fact be predetermined. So, as I said, self-negating.

 

[JohannaK]

I don't know, and for know don't care, for what people said here until now.
I had a sort of... enlightenment, yesterday in a chat. Everybody went off, and the 2 people left ignored me, so I just started ranting when, all of a sudden, coherent thought on life and death and freedom and existence poured from my head.

But now I forgot And someone cleaned the record, so I can't retrieve it.

Anyway, it was mainly based in Sartre, with Kant terminology.
I spoke of the Superman being that man who recognises his inner nature, which is logically freedom because it tends to satisfy itself with no restraints, and freedom with restraints is no freedom at all, so there is a certain degree of freedom lying within the body.
However, this freedom is restrained by the same body, so it's tied with the soul's freedom, which is the freedom to direct the will and the body towards an objective.

Nevertheless, this usually implies a restriction upon ourselves by our rational soul which will stop us from doing unjust things or morally negative behaviours. That's why Freedom doesn't lie entirely within the soul, because it is constrained by reason.

So, men have two inherent freedoms, a natural one and a supernatural one. One constrained by life and physics and the other by reason and ethics. So the Superman is the man who is able to distinguish his freedom fully. That makes him aware of his independency from the rest of mankind, for it is tied and constrained in their minds and bodies, and is able of whatever he wants to do.

This means that a Superhuman is a complete monster able of the greatest sacrifice and good or mass-murder and evil. BUT as Superhuman he is fully aware of his freedom and thus it's his choice to follow one path or another. Generally it's just an "It Amused Me" motivation what could impulse them, but they might as well voluntarily cede to ethics or reason to focus on human good or evil solely. Although it is also in his nature to live away from mankind, for he can't empathize with people who aren't so aware of their freedom.

To put an example, this Superhuman would be Alan Moore Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't know, and for know don't care, for what people said here until now.

So let me return the favor

 

[Traitorfish]

*snip*

That sounds like nonsense. Is it nonsense? It sounds like nonsense.

 

[Dachs]

That sounds like nonsense. Is it nonsense? It sounds like nonsense.

The forum's Catalan denizens aren't exactly selling the place well, are they?

 

[JohannaK]

Well, I didn't mean it just like that, just that I haven't read it and I wanted to say this before forgetting. In fact I posted this from the front page...