Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

New answers tagged

0

In paragraph 6, al-Farabi describes Aristotle's four causes. The reference on page 134 points to Aristotle's Posterior Analytics ii. 11. 94*20-23. One may also consider survey articles on Aristotle's four causes to guide further study and provide more reference material. Here are two: Falcon, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of ...


0

‘There might be nothing’ is false when read epistemically. (Roughly, a proposition is epistemically possible if it is consistent with everything that is known.) For we know that something actually exists and knowledge of actuality precludes all rival epistemic possibilities. But when read metaphysically, ‘There might be nothing’ seems true. So ‘Why ...


0

Despite Logical Positivists and others who will tell you that some questions are not fit to ask, I hold it as a personal truth that all questions that can be framed can be asked, and even from nonsense we can sometimes learn something, such as where we are personally mistaken in our understanding. Given that, I say this looks like "what Martin Heidegger has ...


0

There are two essential arguments that make this a good question; assuming that the existence of physical objects is a fundamental truth[0], which is not, but just for now: [1] According to the empiricists, existence is subjective. That means that an object exists only if I can perceive it. If I cannot perceive it, it doesn't exist. For example, my wife ...


1

Why didn't you just ask "Do forces exist?" Asking if they "really exist" obscures the question. What kind of distinction is there between something "existing" and "really existing"? Existence is already a metaphysical concept and so is outside the realm of science. When "existence" is used in science it refers to patterns of experience. That is all we have ...


2

Before trying to ask 'How to measure', first you should confirm whether consciousness is a thing like light, waves, radiation etc. If you are quite sure about it, you may try to search a tool for measuring it. We don't even know whether consciousness is zero dimensional, infinite dimensional or something more than these. Those who could realize ...


2

The answers to the three questions What is the probability that it is possible to build at least two simulations? What is the probability that there's anyone who can do it? What is the probability that this someone has done it? could be anything one wants between 0 and 1, from impossible to necessary. If you find it hard to believe that ...


2

Your question is a deep one about the very nature of logic. If logical truths are true, what exactly are they true of? And how do we know? There are many possible answers to these questions, and no general agreement among philosophers. Since the literature is pretty huge, I can only briefly summarise the main positions. Simple logical realism would have it ...


0

According to quantum field theory, three of the four forces are due to the exchange of particles: Electromagnetic interaction is exchanging gamma quanta, i.e. photons. Weak interaction is exchanging W- and Z-bosons. Strong interaction is exchanging gluons. In addition, electromagnetic and weak interaction can be considered as two particular forms of the ...


1

I wouldn't say that physical phenomena universe is differentiable, rather differentiability is a property of functions which are abstract objects (unlike rocks, trees, concrete stuff we do physics on). Note that momentum, forces and the like are abstract objects that we use to get information about concrete things. When we do physics, we take a phenomenon, ...


1

Classical physics as well as quantum mechanics (QM) and the theory of general relativity use as basic equation differential equations. A differential equation assumes that the law in question can be expressed by differentiable functions. This assumption has proven fruitful since the times of Newton. And QM shows: Even when the basic differential equations ...


2

I don't believe that there is wide agreement among contemporary philosophers on the answer to your question. The layperson's position you describe above sounds like logical realism. Logical realism states that there are facts of logic, and these facts are completely independent of us (our minds and our language). If humans had never existed, the law of non-...


1

In my philosophy program (fifteen years ago) I learned to distinguish symbolic logic (a symbolic, or formal language) from philosophy, which relies on meanings derived from natural languages. I don't think that it's very useful to conflate these two fields of study. Assertions claimed in natural language differ in their properties from logical "...


2

Michael Polanyi claims (page 7) ...all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. Here is Wikipedia's description of tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. Here is ...


3

Which philosophers have proven existing is being part of the change in time? Coincidentally, I became interested in the work of Lee Smolin just last evening. A renowned theoretical physicist, he has made major contributions to the philosophy of physics. His areas of research includes cosmology. According to Wikipedia, in an article he wrote for Physics ...


0

Here are some relevant words. "In the Foundation of Morality, Schopenhauer asks the question: How is it that a human being can so participate in the pain and danger of another that, forgetting his own self-protection, he moves spontaneously to the other’s rescue? How is it that what we think of as the first law of nature - self-protection - is suddenly ...


2

I find the question rather difficult to disentangle but seem to agree with its conclusion, and this seems to agree with Aristotle's conclusion. This may be another example of an issue being made more and more complex in an effort to overcome what is in fact a simple problem to state. if a thing exists it must have a status and it must be subject to ...


2

A short piece of dialogue between Subject an Matter appears at the end of the Supplement to book1 of The World as Will and Representation, chap. 1. As a forcible conclusion of this important and difficult discussion I shall now personify these two abstractions, and present them in a dialogue after the fashion of Prabodha Tschandro Daya. It may also ...


2

Schopenhauer offers a double epistemological aspect of the world, which is to say, existence, as being at once Will and Idea. His work is not explicitly a study of ontology, i.e. essence/being, beyond the essences of Ideas, which for Schopenhauer are simply the intelligible, a priori objectifications of Will, for the subject. Although this system appears ...


0

@ Yechiam Weiss- As has been pointed out previously, but here stated a bit differently, without accounting for the participation of the human mind in some aspect of the process, 'objectivity' is not only untenable but impossible and absurd. It is, in fact, not even desirable. To claim that somehow 'observable phenomena' 'reveal' their intrinsic 'truth value' ...


0

People thinking about this might be interested in an article by Schaerer, Alec "Conceptual Conditions for Conceiving Life – a Solution for Grasping its Principle, not Mere Appearances" in: G. Palyi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti (Hrsg.) Fundamentals of Life; Paris: Elsevier pp. 589-624. This article won much praise. The author distinguishes the law or principle of ...


1

@ Mozibur Ullah- One simple way to approach this question may not resolve whether what has been observed as what appear to be 'laws' of nature are such, is to point up that no matter what the physical activity under observation, whether in a fishbowl, an ocean, a person's body, the moon, distant stars, black holes, or even the Big Bang, at each and every ...


2

In your question you reject a possibility on the grounds that it is absurd: But this is like saying that: a thing can come from nothing. This way the real world can be a finite realm that originated from Nothing. Which is absurd! However, that reality is absurd is a possibility that you should consider. If you allow reality to be infinite, which is a ...


1

These definitions are all, according to Spinoza, "concerning God". By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. There is only one thing the essence of which involves existence and the nature of which is best described as existent: the Universe, which Spinoza ...


0

Spinoza's Axioms are aligned with his definitions in such a way that clearly understanding the axioms clarifies the definitions as well. So if you do not mind; reread Spinoza's axioms in Part 1- Concerning God. Then read these transliterated versions of his axioms. From there proceed to his Definitions and then read the transliterated Definitions. Both the ...


0

I've only read part of the ethics, but the definitions seem straightforward. Think of a "conception" as a big bubble drawn on a piece of paper. The first definition says that if we have the bubble then the thing inside it exists. An example of what could be in this bubble: perhaps God (does the idea of God mean he exists?), perhaps not. The second ...


1

In order to understand Spinoza's definitions we need to apply a type of 'expansionist thinking'. His concepts do not respond to any type of reduction. Substance, for example contains everything which the human mind can contemplate and much more. Not in some 'ding an sich' manner. Substance is an 'idea' which we can form in our minds and comprehend, in some ...


0

As has been said, among other thinkers you're talking about Zeno of Alea and his paradoxes. It is the old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and it leads into the philosophical aspects of the calculus and the existential status of the 'ghosts of departed quantities'. It's a profound and rewarding area of thought with a lot of ...


0

See Aristotle's Physics: 185b8-on Now we say that the continuous is one or that the indivisible is one, or things are said to be one, when the account of their essence is one and the same, as liquor and drink. If their One is one in the sense of continuous, it is many; for the continuous is divisible ad infinitum. And Categories: 4b20-on Of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included