Hot answers tagged

65

I think you have a false premise. Your premise seems to be "Devout believers/adherents of the religion Islam believe that humans need not make any effort in their survival in the natural world." I don't think that is true. Evidence against that premise is that people in Saudi Arabia farm, gather, purchase, or otherwise obtain food to eat. If your premise ...


31

There's a good joke about this. The Mississippi floods, but this guy stays put and says "God will save me". A policeman comes past and says "Better be going" but our guy says "God will save me". The river rises more, and he moves upstairs. A rescue boat comes past and the crew say "Come on, you've got to go", but our guy says "God will save me". The river ...


25

Like you, I think most uses of the terms 'probable' and 'random' are just epistemic, i.e. they relate to how much information we have. We say of a toss of a coin that it is random, and that there is a probability of (approximately) one half of it falling heads, but this just reflects the information we possess. Tell me more about the force and vector of the ...


22

This is a very huge question spanning multiple fields in philosophy. I do not have the expertise to cover all of these, so I'll focus on my personal favourite, the Philosophy of Mind aspect. As it stands there are no universally agreed upon answers to whether humans are different from computers in how they think. There are people on both sides of the ...


21

The short answer: Your premise is not correct. Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily complex-valued. Here is a primer from Physics.SE if you are solid on the math. An explanation that is light on math: Complex numbers represent a particular collection of symmetries that behave in a particular way. They happen to be closely related to Real numbers because ...


19

There are some religious groups --I'm thinking here of "prosperity" churches --that promote the message that nothing but good things will ever happen to the truly faithful. But these are definitely among the minority among religious traditions. Most religious people don't take it as an article of faith that bad things won't sometimes happen in their lives. ...


17

Your question is about metaphysical realism and skepticism. There are indeed radical sceptic arguments against realism such as Descartes's demon, brain in a vat or the idea that one is actually dreaming, but also reasons to resist these arguments. First note that there can be no empirical evidence for or against such radical scepticism because these ...


16

tl;dr- Depends on a person's level of mental development. The truth's crazy complicated, but we go through stages of understanding. Stage 1: Realism. The simplest way to understand reality is through the lens of realism. It's the mental model children adopt upon acquiring object permanence. The gist is that there's one, objective reality that we all ...


12

"Distrust your senses" is a very long tradition. Recall Plato's "cave" analogy from the early dawn of philosophy, ~400 BC. Plato postulated that there is a reality outside of what humans experience. He compared the human "experience through the senses" to the experience of a caveman looking at a shadow play on the cave wall: The caveman can only see the ...


11

I think one reality is certain and indisputable: our own individual reality which is intuitively perceived without the need to any empirical data or substantiation. There can be no doubt that you are a self-conscious reality: a reality that realizes itself! Now on the analytical level, the statement "there is no reality" is itself an expression of a ...


10

The answer you get will depend on who you ask. There is no consensus within philosophy, so depending on which philosopher you ask the answer may be either yes or no or maybe or it's-impossible-to-tell. However, within the natural sciences there is pretty good consensus that we are just (analog, noisy, non-deterministic (due to quantum mechanics)) computers....


9

I think one source of confusion with the concept of time is that it actually names two very different but related concepts: The qualitative concept of time as an experience. The objective physical phenomenon underlying that experience. To make clear what I mean, let's look at a different concept where this separation is generally understood and where we ...


7

Summary Information distinguishes between multiple states of affairs; which indicates at the very least a bias in the likelihood that some state of affairs is realized, and ideally which indicates that some single state of affairs is realized while a number of alternatives have not been. In order to have a unit of information, you must have at least two ...


7

The basic response to this question (whether you listen to ancient philosophy, early/late modern philosophy, or pretty much anybody who's thought much about it) is that "you could always be missing something". Carneades: It's basically impossible to KNOW anything with certainty, because you can never know how much you don't know. But you have to live life, ...


7

If there were no reality, then all would be unreal. If all is unreal, then you are not real, your thoughts are not real, the statements you make are not real, there is no truth or falsehood, there is no reason, there is nothing but nothing (and not even empty space, since that's something. The verb "is" simply isn't available, period). Thus, the person who ...


7

In my opinion, the best response to ontological uncertainty is to strive to live in a way that is meaningful regardless of the true nature of reality. While it may seem implausible, it may be less so than it seems. Consider the following --we don't know how our universe originated, we don't know what its fate is, we don't know with any certainty our own ...


7

In my opinion you are mixing up different points: Physics does not use complex numbers to count entities. It is sufficient to count mangos by non-negative rational numbers, i.e. 1 mango, 1.5 mangos, 1/3 mango etc. You are right that quantum mechanics is based on the psi-function which is a complex function. The squared modulus of this function, a real ...


7

Here is the question: So did we discover symmetry, or do we impose it? (like numbers) And why do we need it? David John Baker describes symmetries (page 2): ...symmetries of a theory are transformations that preserve its laws. These transformations help us distinguish between "fundamental quantities" and "surplus structure" (page 4): ...physical ...


6

The distinction between formal and objective reality in Descartes is elucidated on Brown's web page. Formal reality refers to the reality of an object by virtue of the kind of thing it is (infinite, finite, modes/thoughts). Descartes view of formal reality is encapsulated in this online commentary: "When Descartes speaks of things as having more or less ...


6

Complex numbers are ordered pairs of numbers that have an extended definition of multiplication that is useful for representing circular motion in two-dimensions. (The definition of multiplication for complex numbers represents rotation around the origin point, plus scaling of the amplitude of that point according to the normal rules of scalar ...


6

Reality is objective, not subjective. Therefore, you can remove the subjective part of "So for him, does anything even exist?" and make it: "Does anything even exist?" The obvious answer is yes. If that doesn't convince you: That person needs to exist for anything to be subjectively true or false, doesn't it? Therefore (again) true. "Does that mean only ...


6

In this piece which talks about similar questions about the nature of reality and his own quasi-mystical experiences, he mentions a number of pre-socratic philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras) along with Plato, Hume and Spinoza: The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides taught that the only things that are real are things which ...


5

What would a quantum interpretation without ontology be like? Short Explanation: It looks like instrumentalism. Instrumentalism avoids the debate between anti-realism and philosophical or scientific realism. It may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually ...


5

Just a few points: If man is born from the universe, we are a product of the universe. This much is certain. don't be so certain! I would recommend looking at the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant, as well as those in the 'neo-Kantian' tradition for some compelling reasons why this is not a certainty. As an entry point I would consider the possibility ...


5

It seems to me that your question is ill-posed. With that I mean that the question is not well defined: take for example the classic problem "If a tree falls but no one is there, does it make any sound?" The problem with this is the unclear definition of "sound", so if one does not define it better, the question is ill-posed. Back to your problem. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible