New answers tagged

0

"Or is it that, since the universe was created last Thursday to look 13.8 billion years old, it acts as if the laws of physics have been around for all those years?" Yeah, that's the idea. This is more of an epistemic thought experiment than a metaphysics one to be honest.


0

If the universe were created by some divine being with the appearance of age, it could in theory have been created with a kind of physics that can be observed to change. Maybe the speed of light wouldn't be constant for example. But that's not the kind of physics we observe. So if a divine being created this universe with the appearance of age, with the ...


-2

In what Russell calls the 'Western' or 'Rational' of philosophical thought metaphysics is impossible. This is demonstrated by history. It is not in fact impossible, but it becomes so as soon as we reject the Perennial philosophy. The SEP belongs firmly in this tradition. Fortunately it is impossible to prove that metaphyscis is impossible. This is because ...


1

According to Borchert's entry on metaphysics , metaphysics is the act of attempting to account for the "fundamental nature of being", and is "concerned with the contours of the categories of entity postulated or presupposed" real or imagined to encompass "a complete, coherent ontology, embracing all that is necessary to capture the correct account of the ...


0

You have omitted the modality and are misrepresenting the quote. They are guessing that this may be the majority position. Also, if you read the next sentence, there is not a conflict between that and relativity. Non-locality just requires God would have to be everywhere in space as well as everywhere in time. But why is that a problem? It is already ...


2

I think you are asking what it means for something to be a 'system'. A system typically has component parts or entities that are combined and structured in a particular way so that the system as a whole has properties that the individual parts do not. A system may be artificial, in which case it will usually have an intended function or purpose, or it may be ...


0

As someone who has lectured before, I can tell you that sometimes speakers change wording just for variety; it's boring to use the same word over and over, for both the speaker and the listener. You can trust that any reasonable academic will highlight when word-choice is important. If Stalnaker is not making a stink about "By 'instantiate' I mean this [...] ...


0

Not familiar with Stanlaker, but in a particularly analytic strand of modern continental philosophy (i.e., Ray Brassier) I have seen the exemplification/instantiation distinction used to distinguish hylomorphic theories from immanent materialism. Basically, if a concept is exemplified in a particular material arrangement (like a falling apple being an ...


0

We are aware of waking consciousness, dreaming, and dreamless sleep. But there is another state called Turiya. In Indian philosophy the three terms to denote these are, Jagrat, Svapna and Sushupti. Turiya is - as Ramana Maharshi, states - "the state of wakeful sleep." It is the fourth state of consciousness, which is the higher or pure Consciousness. ...


1

The philosophical issue I perceive here is the question of identity. To what extent are you the same person from moment to moment, year to year; and to what extent is the continuity of your identity an illusion? There are MANY different philosophical perspectives on these questions. Some are recent, and based in modern theories of the brain and the mind, ...


3

The Upanishads are the compendium of Indian philosophy. Of which the Mandukya is both the shortest (just 12 verses) and is considered the pinnacle. At the risk of talking beyond my capacity to explain (or even understand!) here's my summary: Everything (call it world, God, religion, philosophy, meaning-of-life...) can be subsumed under the four states of ...


1

I would want some evidence that the majority of philosophers place God in time eternally. The idea makes no sense. It places limits on what is defined as limitless and requires a fundamental space-time. I would have thought the majority of philosophers either reject the idea of God or assume He is fundamental and prior to space-time. I would hope that the ...


2

Welcome to Philosophy SE. You mentioned that the cosmological argument "crashes and burns" because the existence of God as uncaused or unexplained contradicts one of the premises of the argument. This is the "what caused God?" objection, but it rests on a misreading of the argument. The cosmological arguments put forward by philosophers do not say that "...


2

First of all, as a matter of logic, arriving at a contradiction means that one or more of your assumptions must be false. So, to see what the argument by contradiction proves you have to consider everything that it assumes. So here are some assumptions of the argument: A. Every entity in existence owes its existence to some other entity other than itself (...


0

Atoms have finite size in three dimensions. Therefore, for atoms to exist, you need three dimensions of space, which means that for molecules to exist, you need three dimensions. Since life as we know it is based on atoms and molecules, you need three dimensions for life as we know it to exist. Why not four dimensions for space instead? To begin with, ...


1

It's a bit unclear what you're asking, but I'll run with the part: "What do we get as observers from being in 2D rather than 1D?" I've also italicized a few things which answer the sub-questions in your question. TL;DR You get a lot of complexity with each added dimension, and that might seem nice for humans. But lots of cool things happen in just a few ...


1

It is possible to work out that time is an illusion in the sense that it is not fundamental but is a function of mind. Hermann Weyl makes the argument in his book 'The Continuum', as does Nagarjuna in 'Fundamental Wisdom'. If we look closely we find that when we assume time is truly real many paradoxes arise, and this is what allows us to work out that it ...


0

to know the benefits of three-dimensional space we have to first understand the problems which we would have faced by not knowing about three-dimensional space is. Some of them are:- We would have never known what is the difference in reality because we would have never had the opportunity to look at things as they were. Let's take an example of the view ...


1

Special Relativity implies that time is an illusion, as Einstein said, but that causality is not: two events may be 'simultaneous' - when there is a reference frame in which the two time coordinates are equal - or not, in which case one event occurs before the other in all reference frames. The point is that this just refers to pairs of events; time in the ...


2

Let me point out, first, that Occam's Razor is not a law; it's a rule-of-thumb that has more to do with pragmatics and aesthetics than necessity. It's a good rule of thumb, sure, but it is based on an a priori belief that the universe as a whole conforms to what human minds count as parsimony. That being said, the main issue with applying Occam's Razor to ...


-1

The same Occam who has a razor named after him also said: Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover. Furthermore He believed that science was a ...


2

The argument seems to be a variation of Parmenides's argument against change, especially the premise "ex nihilo nihil fit" that being ("B" in your example) cannot come from nothing (to which "A" was reduced): If a thing arrives at existence it comes either from being or from nothing. Now it cannot come from being (statue from existing statue). Still ...


1

I feel your argument works. It is one of the arguments used in the Perennial tradition to show the impossibility of change. Change is seen to occur but the idea of change doesn't work when we assume the essential or fundamental reality of the changing object. So your argument is not actually against perceived change, which is simply a fact, but against the ...


0

It appears to me: Existence is not dependent upon something else. Nothing could act as a prior explanation of existence because any prior existence would have to exist. e.g. the contrast between non-existence and existence could not cause existence because to be a first cause it would have to exist. Therefore nothing is necessary to existence except itself. ...


1

Existence: (Meaning) 1.The fact or state of living or having objective reality. 2.Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with physical or mental reality. For existence of an entity, contrast is necessary. You gave a few words and their opposites to convince the necessity of contrast. But before dealing this word--existence, we should ...


1

All of it is a matter of point of view. When you see fast and slow for example, I only see different degrees of speed. Human is really good at making opposites probably because it is easier for us. It is more like the human brain built all the contrasts to make it easier for us. Fast/Slow, Good/Bad, High/Low are bounds of our vision and there is many thing ...


4

One way to interpret this might be to say that metaphysics could, in principle, discuss the realms of what is merely "possible", as well as those things and facts that are "actual". We can speak of things that are actually the case, but we also seem to be able to speak of alternative possibilities. I'm not actually throwing this laptop I'm typing on, but I ...


Top 50 recent answers are included