New answers tagged

1

If time has a single dimension like a path or a line, all events/travel must abide by that linear ordering. Adding a dimension would be like dropping 2D plane on top of the 1D line. Any point on the original line could then be gotten to from any other point on the line, without passing through points between them on the line by traveling up into the plane ...


1

Many early concepts of cosmology were quite finite; the (probably flat) Earth was surrounded by one thing and another on all sides, with as often as not a big lid, the Biblical "firmament", clapped over us. God's realm (and maybe also Hells of one kind or another) lay beyond. But many were pretty hazy about the scientific physicality of such ...


3

If you're specifically interested in other physical realms that aren't part of the same space that we inhabit (i.e. you couldn't get there by traveling some distance in space), this article talks about how a French bishop named Etienne Tempier argued in 1277 that Aristotle was wrong to argue that the ground under our feet had to be a unique collection of the ...


0

You are correct that this is a problem. An example of an associative memory that can "try" to remember something, improving its recollection over multiple attempts, is a Boltzmann machine. When prompted with a key, the Boltzmann machine attempts to find a value of low energy for that key. Initially the value will be fairly random, and high energy,...


1

I haven't read through it but this book Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics (hopefully you can check it out online) has a lot of essays on holism, especially Ch. 3 by Tim Maudlin Part and Whole in Quantum Mechanics How Einstein presents the clearest view of a certain kind of reductionism in a letter, how Einstein presumably ...


6

Interpretation of the Platonic forms is a big wrangle and may be undertaken in many ways. But the simplest answer to your question "in what realm" might just be to say everywhere or in every "realm." Thus the "squareness" of a square, to use the old trope, is not "in" this or that particular square thing. In fact, any ...


1

I would say, don't be afraid to read the major texts by the principal philosophers themselves. One of the reasons the great philosophers are considered great is that they are worth reading. That said, some are hard to understand. Some of the greats of the 'modern' era are Spinoza's Ethics, David Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature, and Kant's Critique of Pure ...


0

I think it's irrelevant whether the argument is valid because the conclusion reports only what "seems" likely to your interlocutor, which is not particularly interesting. There's no (known) objective probability measure over all metaphysically possible worlds. So the probabilities (chances) in the argument you report must be subjective, which is ...


1

Looks like they're connected by mistranslation, from Greek to Latin, described here: “On the Essence and Concept of Physis in Aristotle’s Physics B, 1” from Sheehan's Translations, 1998 It roughly says energia (like eidos) - the idea - and dunamis (ability) in Greek were (apparently) reversed in sense to actus (actuality) and potentia (potential) in Latin. ...


0

It is a difficult question to answer. Take for instance when someone who wakes from a dream gives an anecdote regarding what may have occurred within it, a common one for example, being flight. If we accept this anecdote we can then say that flying is something that one could only do in a dream since we are unable to do so while awake. In other words, there ...


0

A priori knowledge is knowledge whose justification is not empirical in some important sense. The idea is that, with some propositions, once we have grasped what they mean, we know them to be true without having to test them empirically. It should not be confused with innate knowledge, which is knowledge we are born with or which is part of our biological ...


4

Hawking is talking about the fact even if we discovered the equations of a complete and final unified theory of fundamental physics, there would still be the question of why a universe described by those equations exists at all. So, I don't think there would be any philosophical term other than "existence" or "being" here (the ...


1

I am reminded of this passage from the preface to Kant's Critique of Practical Reason: Nothing worse could happen to these labours than that anyone should make the unexpected discovery that there neither is, nor can be, any a priori knowledge at all. But there is no danger of this. This would be the same thing as if one sought to prove by reason that there ...


0

It depends on what you mean by metaphysics. The popular definition of metaphysics deals with the supposed existence of phenomena experienced by humans which have no conventional explanation, like for example UFO abductions, ghosts, haunted houses, witchcraft, telepathy, telekinesis, spoonbending, and so on. Metaphysicists in this arena have nothing to ...


1

Can these beings understand graph theory and formal logic? Time is a multi-world system in which a meta-world connects worlds in a directed graph. The tail of an edge never contains more information about the meta-world than the head. You might argue that this does not constitute true understanding. I would counter by saying that I reason about parallel ...


1

Yes. Take a person who understands time from experience, and analyse the structure of their brain down to the position of every atom. Now create a new brain exactly identical to the first and assemble it in a fraction of a second. At the moment of its creation, the new brain understands time without ever having experienced it. The detailed description of the ...


2

Relativity shows time can't be fully understood from our experiences, because they don't include high gravity or speeds a significant fraction of that of light. Given things like physics with two time dimensions, and time stopping at the edge of a blackhole from the rest-frame of an observer outside, our intuitions are not reliable. Time without a theory of ...


1

According to the slingshot argument, although there are arbitrarily many true sentences (or propositions), these all have One True Fact (or a singular Truth Value) for their reference. Sometimes we might speak of a "big conjunctive contingent fact" (see here) as comprising some concrete world. The disquotational scheme says that "Sp," is ...


1

Long story short: no, following any of the dictionaries definitions, there are multiple truths, which depend on multiple facts. To get a philosophical systematization of such concepts, better googling for theories of truth. QM and relativity are currently not coherent [1]. This essentially means that predictions made from a QM perspective are different from ...


11

Ill-formed question: understanding already presupposes the experience of time. Understanding essentially means making inferences with concepts (e.g. understanding how vaccines work means inferring that after taking a jab a series of causal mechanisms are triggered, and the final fact in the sequence would be the production of antibodies). So, ponendo ponens, ...


11

To get a really good answer you should explain what you mean by "understand", do you mean be able to construct a mathematical model and make predictions? or maybe get such an intuitive feel for it that you can make predictions in your head, without having to write down equations? In any case, physicists and mathematicians regularly deal with higher ...


Top 50 recent answers are included