Did I perhaps mention another name when it comes to philosophy?

One example of perhaps proving a theory is the detonation of the first nuclear bomb near Alamagordo, New Mexico, in June 1945.

Possibly the name for this explosion was Trinity. Need to check further on this.

The successful detonation of the first nuclear bomb was a proof that an estimate for the so-called "critical mass" in order to set off this uncontrolled chain reaction had been correctly determined.

During the Manhattan project at least one serious accident lead to the death of a scientist only a few days later. In the same way, both Marie and Pierre Curie were exposed to radiation during their experiments.

For at least one of them, a quite big dose of this apparently became the result when carried out their experiments. This dose of radiation was not enough to kill, but instead probably shortened the life length for the person.

Speaking of mass versus energy. It is always the most easiest way of speaking about these terms in the words of Isaac Newton. Always thinking about static energy versus moving mass and its corresponding energy as the result of such a movement, I always forget one of the two necessary words being used for this.

Namely potential (or static) energy versus kinetic energy.

Perhaps we should return back to the concept of the pendulum for a better understanding of these definitions.

Let a dozen of roundish steel globes hang besides each other from a rope on a straight line. Each rope is the same length and starting at the same height. Then lift up one of the end globes in an arc and drop it on the next globe in the set and see what happens next.

The chain reaction of events which could happen next could last for a very long time and it would be almost impossible to compute the outcome or finish of such an event.

Definitely the physical and mathematical laws behind this principle is well known, but in the end unpredictability sets in, therefore making it impossible to know the final outcome in advance.

By means of its movement through space, a particle is supposed to be losing a fraction of its mass by releasing energy by means of radiation.

We usually do not associate the force of gravity with the movement of a particle on its own, only which force, like the earth or sun may be affecting its trajectory and direction in space.

There is always a difference between abstract and logical thinking. By means of abstract thinking you may perhaps come up with a painting like one of Pablo Picasso. By means of logical or deductive thinking, certain conclusions, which may be followed up by experiments being carried out in practice may lead to the proof of such a way of thinking.

In the end philosophy is just one way of perhaps explaining science. Doing it in such a way does not always prove everything.

Wasn't this thread handling Philosophy? :D

I suspect that math and logic is so central in some peoples lives
that their personal philosophy is tangled up with it.
Personally I prefer a philosophy based on etichs and values.
But each to ones own.

---

Yesterdays liberating insight is todays bullshit and tomorrows jail of stale explaination.

Should define your terms. What do you mean by Philosophy? I have posted many different translations of the Platonic Dialogs and even some of Aristotle's Works in audiobook form on the Internet Archive. All of it for free download.

What Plato was describing as philosophy is this.

The mind is responsible of human behavior. It is wholly linguistic by function. language is effected as standards of behavior. Standards of behavior is Law.

There are two fundamental branches of language; Logic and Analogic, both derived from one element of a thing, thus each requires the other for language to be possible.

One of the things Plato noted is that definition and definition alone determines the principles of predication.

What Plato was demonstrating is the principles of language in action.

As language is the only power a mind has in order to do its own work, then a Philosopher, a true philosopher had a craft called dialectic. Dialectic was a method of exercising the mind to become functionally linguistic.

When a person does not comprehend the principles of language, then they are wholly unaware of when they are speaking gibberish. Thus dialect was aimed at putting stress on the mind, to have it confront its own errors. Only if the errant person could resolve the conflict, could they make progress.

Each of his dialogs are outlined on a principle of language and its effect on human psychology.

Today, I doubt that there are many who know what philosophy was, they only know the name but not the meaning.

Philosophy is aimed at the mind doing its own work, that is thinking in accordance with definition. Someone who enumerates a bunch of rubbish is not a philosopher.

Definition determines the principles of predication, i.e. assertion and denial. For example, one cannot predicate of a predicate, or that the relative difference between terms cannot be ascribed to either term. A fault that is rampant in science today. People are not taught to think by definition, and therefore are completely ignorant of what they say.

Plato also knew this. Many people, most in fact, are incapable of thinking in accordance with definition, they can only think by enumeration; factually they are proto-linguistic. Thus, as Philsophy has the same aim as the mind, the production of civil behavior, the only way to aid such people was through calling upon brute emotion, thus a good dialectician also creates mythologies.

The best combination of the two, is the use of metahor, When one can think by definition, one can comprehend the metaphor, however, a primitive mind takes it as a directive, or a fact.

The Judeo-Christian Scripture also functions like a true dialectician. It will often say the same thing, one time to look good, and another to look bad.

That is why noone was able to solve for the riddle of two stories of creation,

The Serpent spoke in the name of the Lord, what he said came to pass and God confirmed his words, etc., the two stories say the same thing, the same conceptual content in each. Remember, Judge not by appearance but by righteous judgment? Well, people cannot judge because they are not functionally linguistic.

This example is also in regard to the puzzle, which is a simple one, the Name of the Beast 666. At lest four different times one is told in the text how to resolve the numbers. However, the final solution requires once again, definition. The puzzle works out to be the function of the mind itself;

To regulate one's behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass.

That is the biologically defined job of a functional mind.

This "shutter" is also mentioned in the O.T. as the Key to the house of David.

If you want to see it done step by step, I give examples of it in my essays.

So yes, there is more than enough evidence, especially with the other things I am to do to say that the Book was compiled under an influence which was certainly not mystical, and certainly not human. The Book is an exercise in linguistic processing.

---

https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

https://archive.org/details/DelianQuest2015

It's like the advice from a psychologist to a wrestler "Get a grip on yourself".

The brain has many non-linguistic functionings. Not all of them consciously explained in language.

Remember Socrates claimed to know nothing as reported by Plato.
Ego ID libido Animus all arbitrary musings and constructs in attempts to model the unknowable. Worse than trying to build an artificial brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

These are suggestions only for further reading.

See the original post in this thread.

See the original post in this thread.

I think that would be a good thing to refer back to. It was about trees.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality.

The answers that I gave seem much more feet on the ground to me than all this "if A=B does B exist stuff." It might provoke critical thinking and encourage analysis but nothing much else that I can see.

The philosopher says "that's an interesting question, how could one know whether there was a sound?", the scientist says "no, sound is the observation of vibrations, the tree will only create vibrations, it is not equipped to observe those vibrations as sound", Chris S says "the tree falling in question will obviously make a noise". What are the philosopher and the scientist missing?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

See the original post in this thread.

I think that would be a good thing to refer back to. It was about trees.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality.

The answers that I gave seem much more feet on the ground to me than all this "if A=B does B exist stuff." It might provoke critical thinking and encourage analysis but nothing much else that I can see.

The philosopher says "that's an interesting question, how could one know whether there was a sound?", the scientist says "no, sound is the observation of vibrations, the tree will only create vibrations, it is not equipped to observe those vibrations as sound", Chris S says "the tree falling in question will obviously make a noise". What are the philosopher and the scientist missing?

Both are presuming the presence of an atmosphere, otherwise there would be nothing to transmit the sound.

---

See the original post in this thread.

I think that would be a good thing to refer back to. It was about trees.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality.

The answers that I gave seem much more feet on the ground to me than all this "if A=B does B exist stuff." It might provoke critical thinking and encourage analysis but nothing much else that I can see.

The philosopher says "that's an interesting question, how could one know whether there was a sound?", the scientist says "no, sound is the observation of vibrations, the tree will only create vibrations, it is not equipped to observe those vibrations as sound", Chris S says "the tree falling in question will obviously make a noise". What are the philosopher and the scientist missing?

Both are presuming the presence of an atmosphere, otherwise there would be nothing to transmit the sound.

There very likely wouldn't be a forest either.
[edit]Thinking a little longer, I'm not sure either the scientist or the philosopher make that assumption in the answers i provided them[/edit]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The ground, when struck by the tree, would conduct sound vibrations, even in the absence of an atmosphere.

What are the philosopher and the scientist missing?

1. One sandwich short of a picnic
2. One can short of a six pack
3. One button short of a cardigan.

Take your pick.

What have philosophers ever done for this world? Cured Cancer, stopped wars? All they have done is drink the local hooch, wax lyrical, and messed up peoples minds for generations afterwards.

There have been many posts already about logic, and I'd say it was a pretty useful contribution to human knowledge (you do know logic is a branch of philosophy don't you?). Also some of the most basic foundations of mathematics were developed by philosophers (Pythagoras, for instance).

Have to wonder, are you playing the part of John Cleese?

I refer you to my original post regarding trees. Nobody yet has come up with a good enough rebuttal that I can accept.

Why is the scientist's answer not good enough? With respect to the philosopher's response, what criteria do you believe are sufficient to say a thing is known, and how are these criteria met in the example of the tree?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I have a six volume set of books titled "Storia del pensiero scientifico e filosofico" by professor Ludovico Geymonat of the Milano State University. Evidently the two disciplines are linked. As I mentioned earlier, the masterpiece by Isaac Newton is titled "Philosphiae naturalis principia mathematica". It is still used by NASA.
Tullio

---

Added to all this is Zeno's paradoxes, the most famous being Achilles and the tortoise, and Homer and the bus. Zeno It COULD be said that in THEORY Achilles is always some distance away from the tortoise, even if just 1 millionth of an inch, and the same as the bus. But in practical terms, one last flying leap would put him in front of it, or one last hop would put him on it.

This is explained by the dichotomy paradox that concludes that all motion therefore must be just an illusion. Utter tosh.

The three examples that you gave DO exist, we can detect them, we just don't know exactly what they are. This business of the cat and the tree is just woolly thinking, from people that think too much, and has no practical purpose that I can see.

What Xeno described essentially involved two particles of no dimension, which he and his contemporaries could not imagine or sufficiently imagine. In the case of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles' heel ... errr, foot, could only include a millionth of an inch rather than be encapsulated in a millionth of an inch.

As Sagan pointed out in Cosmos, not be able to delve deeper into this led to many more centuries going by before math and science could advance much further. Thus, application could not advance much further, either.

P.S.-"the sound of one hand clapping" is "woosh, woosh", from the proper perspective.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

"the sound of one hand clapping" is "woosh, woosh", from the proper perspective.

Ah, but think on this. We all know from experience what it sounds like when two hands clap together in applause. One hand moving through the air at about the same speed for that distance, makes no sound at all. Try it. To clap as we understand it needs two hands or a hand and another object.

Strictly you sentence should read

"the sound of one hand moving in the air fast enough, is "woosh, woosh", from the proper perspective."

ducks behind sofa ....

So, you've never clapped a hand on or near your knee.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

In the vernacular 'clap" can also mean placed on. Sometimes suggesting a hurried or rude placement of the hand or other object. This I have not heard recently but I am quite sure that I am remembering this correctly. "as in: "clapped a lid on the box" or "clapped a hand on his shoulder"

The last time I clapped a hand on someone's knee she was not amused!

So you didn't get your tonsils licked in return?

---

To clap as we understand it needs two hands or a hand and another object.

Young Sir, I suggest that you are getting your transitive and intransitive Verbs, and nouns mixed up.

See here Clap

The last time I clapped a hand on someone's knee she was not amused!

Sorry, I win: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL-msGUwyug.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Apologies for a post of so much backdatedness - yes - it IS a word - that it's almost off topic now :)

Did any of you read that link I posted earlier? Trees

It purports to say that nothing exists if it can't be seen or heard.

*astonished blink* Well maybe it does, eventually, after a lot of thinking, and if I'm honest, I find it quite comforting thinking I don't really exist :) but I've only reached as far as thinking about it as a question about whether sound is sound and vibrations are vibrations without a mind (and it doesn't have to be a human one in my opinion - so if I may add: nervous system to that, I will continue) to interpret them as such. Otherwise it would be displaced air whooshing (perhaps like a one-handed clap - which I do believe exists, if I exist, as I have done them on my own knee - not someone elses - that may be where you went wrong, Chris... for the express purpose of not spilling my wine). Oh. Now I've forgotten to say what else I was going to say about the falling tree. I'll have to come back to it another time...

I still say philosophy is bunk!

You're missing a lot of really fun mind exercise then, Chris :) Does a fish born in an aquarium look out at us and think we live in: glass/perspex; water; or air? I know some of you probably think fish don't think, but I know they do :) I just don't know what... yet :)

all that philosophers do, is to make clever quips which nobody else understands.

Is it the cleverness you don't understand, then? :)

If I may add to something interesting that tullio said (below)

they are statements that cannot be proved either true or false

to which Chris responded:

So what is the point of them?

To make us think in entirely new and refreshing ways... rather than throwing everything out of the pram at the first brain ache they give you... maybe? :)

I suppose it keeps Philosophers off the streets mugging old ladies...

Do you have a link for that, because in all my days (which are admittedly not as numerous as yours :)) I've never heard of an incident of that nature...? Could it be the other way round do you think - and might you be the instigator? :)

@Bobby:

What are the philosopher and the scientist missing?

Ooh good one! I was going to postulate stuff about the difference being blind or deaf might make, but I haven't thought it through yet so I'm going to say... Erm... that if a woodcutter broke his axe part way through cutting down a tree (for which I do hope he had a good reason in the first place) and went back home to get another one, and someone else who was looking for him didn't know that but heard the tree fall (by itself) and followed the sound to find the fallen tree and the axe, would the woodcutter exist? :)

Oh and re some other very interesting posts... I LOVE maths and infinity :) but I can see myself being driven to the top of a high cliff and then off it by probability... y-e-e-e-s

:)

---

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

I did not find any mentioning of these links here, so whether or not the contents being available in the Wikipedia is relevant to the subject of this thread is for you to decide.

The only thing I was able to notice is that Google was celebrating the 200 birthday of George Boole a couple of days ago with a nice graphical logo on the initial web-page when starting up the web-browser.

Logic is sometimes about numbers. At other times it may rather be about deductions. Next it becomes applied logic, ending in possible axioms.

Edit: As Julie already have mentioned, this thread is about the subject of Philosophy.

So why do I rather choose to write about something else instead?

One reason may be that philosophy is not always about the subject of proof and validity, but rather about certain things which some people might be regarding as being pseudoscience.

Certain phenomena might be sought being explained by means of theories and possible speculation, but there should always be consistency when it comes to the subject being at hand and the possible thinking by means of philosophy which are attempting to solve particular problems.

Definitely some problems may only be solved by carrying out experiments. Other problems may be finding a solution by means of appropriate thinking.

A combination of these two elements should be regarded as the best way of trying to solve a couple of problems. Equations may be able to solve many problems, but even so there may be other phenomena that may only be observed or solved by means of direct experiments or observations.

Fascinating that a sophist should mention axioms.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.