Activity Feed
#513·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYes re OR gate.
Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.
I'll have to tap out sorry. Possibly talking on different trajectories.
If an OR gate is conceived as a computer then the initial post about the brain being conceived as a computer is a banality / an uninteresting syllogism.
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right?
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.
#544·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoInexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
I’d like that.
And yes inexplicit criticism is good! And not taking infinite criticism is bad. Someone should make a list of understandable pitfalls one ought to avoid when trying to apply critical rationalism.
(Logan Chipkin)
#543·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
Inexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
Yes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
#541·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYou mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
To the question of existence.
#540·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoSince you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
#536·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoDoesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.
Good point - philosophy, then.
(Logan Chipkin)
#535·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(Logan Chipkin)
Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.
#532·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIf non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(Logan Chipkin)
#533·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.
(Logan Chipkin)
That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.
(Logan Chipkin)
#532·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIf non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.
(Logan Chipkin)
#530·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIs non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?
(Logan Chipkin)
If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
#530·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIs non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?
(Logan Chipkin)
Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.
(Logan Chipkin)
Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?
(Logan Chipkin)
#525·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year agoI don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right?
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
#522·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
The latter?