New answers tagged

1

MUH does sound exactly like what you're looking for in your OP. Regarding your remaining concern: Tegmark they didn't write anything about substances and abstract/concrete objects, his arguments are mostly from a scientific perspective. First of all MUH is entirely math based thus it describes anything from a fully scientific perspective, not even mostly. ...


1

Tegmark really does go as far as claiming reality is ontologically only a set of abstract entities with relations between them. These entities have no intrinsic qualities. He believes physics and eventually biology and neuroscience will eventually have equivalent "baggageless" descriptions of reality and subjective experience that will live purely ...


0

Many fields that we now call "sciences" were originally thought of as branches of philosophy. For that reason, philosophy is often called the "mother of sciences." A good way of conceptualizing it is that philosophy deals with open questions --ones to which there is no universally acclaimed, uncontroversial answer. All disciplines pose ...


0

What would be some problems if we would define them to be branches of philosophy? When we use the term -- 'branch', we must be able to distinguish one branch from other branches. In other words, we must be able to demark them. This is not possible in the case of some subjects. IMHO, it would be good for us to consider a thing that is subtler and that ...


0

Extended from the original XKCD comic strip, which is in the frame.


2

Quine was generally rather nominal than realistic towards the relative abstract within the context of a predicate as described here. A predicate is a sentence that contains a finite number of quantified variables range over non-logical objects and becomes a statement when specific values are substituted for the variables. And of such entities Quine ...


3

The mitosis example is a bit of a distraction because of the messy realities of DNA copying, positions relative to other objects, etc. What you are trying to get to is the symmetric universe paradox. Max Black has argued against the identity of indiscernibles by counterexample. Notice that to show that the identity of indiscernibles is false, it is ...


0

The analogy I generally use is that particles are like knots or purls in a fabric. If you think of an energy field as a smooth continuum (a three-dimensional equivalent of a two-dimensional sheet of fabric), and then imagine that somehow the fabric got snagged or tangled into a lump than, well... that lump seems like something different than the surrounding ...


2

The way you asked the questions seems to imply that you subscribe to a substance metaphysics. But it seems to me that the way modern physics has progressed, it presents us with a manifestly process-based metaphysics. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, if you're asking really fundamental questions like "what is a particle" physicists will not be able ...


0

Quantum entities completely break our intuition when we try to understand them (reason for which Feynman stated in a lecture that "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"). It is quite difficult to define what is a quantum entity. Like a sphere is something that is not the rest of the space delimited ...


6

Perhaps the biggest achievement of reason is the capability to model the universe as if it would be static. But the universe is not static. Every atom in the universe changes at any instant. The universe is in continuous change. Yet, you might see the same river twice and give it the same name, or you might look yourself in the mirror and thing you are ...


1

This is an excellent point. When a cell A is not dividing, we want to say that A stays the same cell even as it moves and changes over time. When A does divide into two parts, we have no way to decide which part is the original A. If one part is on the left and the other part is on the right, we may equally well give two versions of events: "A split ...


15

They differ in that they are in different position, just as the two copied files differ by being in different locations. Position is a property and therefore they are not identical. In fact, the cells will differ in other ways. The DNA is reproduced, but other cellular structures will be split, and it would be immensely improbable for both halves to be the ...


2

Nobody knows. We model them as wave-like perturbations of the appropriate zero-point field for the characteristics we are interested in. But a zero-point field is just a label to hang the basic mathematics on, we have no idea whether that makes any ontological sense either. And as I have been discovering on the Physics SE, there are many fundamental ...


0

I will comment on your message regarding, which is for me a safer ground than philosophy. Sorry for the very long answer i hope you won't bother anyway to read it and tell me what you think, if you have any comments. As to your finding a way on "how to agree on phenomena" I totally agree. There was a moment (early 1900) where an objective language ...


0

Quantum particles are modeled as excitations of the underlying quantum field. So an electron is an excitation of the electron field, a muon is an excitation of the muon field, and so on. This is called quantum field theory and is a well-developed branch of physics.


0

Firstly, the general branch in philosophy you're seeking is Ontology. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that explores the reality of things in the world. Now the specific type of ontology you describe here seems like some sort of a hierarchical critical/objective-idealism. For example, consider a Kantian framework where the things that exist depend on ...


Top 50 recent answers are included