Science and Philosophy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pocaracas said:
Let me know how decreeing a disembodied entity that, through some seemingly undetectable means, interacts with the brain is the best, simplest, or more likely explanation for the mind.
Click to expand...
Who’s “decreeing?”

Neither was I arguing for a “disembodied entity.”

I was arguing against reductionism, remember?

In fact, jumping to the use of the term “disembodied entity,” demonstrates that you were presuming “such a thing,” since the only two options you seem to admit are strict materialism and “disembodied entity,” as one of the two aspects of dualism. How is that NOT presuming a ghost in the machine that can exist separately or “disembodied” from the machine as the only possible alternative to your reductive materialism?
 
Last edited:
mkoopman said:
You have not spoken with enough mathematicians.
What are the proper powers of infinity and how can we assert a Hausdorf condition? Not much argument between elementary school mathematicians, perhaps. However, mathematics and philosophy cross a very gray line along many bus routes.
Click to expand...
There are different powers of well-ordered infinity with cardinality denoted by the aleph numbers. Aleph-null is the cardinality of the natural numbers. The cardinality of the real numbers is higher and the continuum hypothesis says that there is no set with cardinality strictly between the integers and the real numbers.

Hausdorff spaces are the most frequently used topological spaces. If you are doing analysis, then you are usually talking about metric spaces which are all Hausdorff. But of course there are other spaces that topologists are interested in, but most of them will have a Hausdorff completion. Frechet spaces for example are locally convex spaces which do not have a norm, but still they are Hausdorff spaces. Which non-Hausdorff spaces are you interested in?
 
The spaces along the shorelines of the Bahamas, of course. Excluding human brain eating doctor friends of cannibals, Hannibal.
 
mkoopman said:
The spaces along the shorelines of the Bahamas, of course. Excluding human brain eating doctor friends of cannibals, Hannibal.
Click to expand...
OK. So you are talking about Hausdorff dimension, not Hausdorff spaces. It is true that there are a few other measures of roughness in addition to Hausdorff dimension.
 
Last edited:
Finite sets can have zero or more dimensionality but what does infinite pride in mathematics do to serve this thread?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Do you belong to some super advanced alien life form
Click to expand...
Referring to infinite pride in mathematics or belonging to an alien life form are juvenile accusations and nasty name calling tactics which weaken the credibility of your argument.
Click to expand...
I thought your point was that philosophy has no credibility because there are philosophers on both sides of every question. Which means, does it not, that argumentation as a method is a non-starter as far as credibility is concerned?

So wasn’t it you who sought out to deliberately weaken the credibility of all arguments and philosophy in general?

A little dig at your position shouldn’t matter an iota to you who put no store in arguments to begin with, should it?

You still haven’t answered my main point, though, that every major scientific question remains unresolved at some level or other. So science hasn’t fared much better than philosophy in terms of bringing big questions to a close, has it?
 
It is absolutely beyond the physical. Disproofs of certain topological problems based on the count of every quantum dot in the universe, aside. Clearly this mathematical phantasm is tugging at the abacus beads on the tassles of the curtain that was closed because it would not make for a modest dress. And that is more stream of consciousness than I can usually gum shoe into any trollop through Fredonia. Where is the boundary of Fredonia while the curtain remains raised?
Gummo be praised, (golf claps expected).
I reference comedy but so too tragedy. We played a dirge for you and you did not mourn. All is qualia nothing but solipsism? The secret word that reveals the duck, too late. A real $0.25 word.
No, rational persons can define the abstract. We can imagine a true perfection, a real circle, a love beyond human capacity. We can “know” God, in the way that a finite creature who is loved by the infinite God can, in this world.
 
Well, yes, I owe you an apology. Did you know Saint John Paul II apologized to his would be assassin? What for you may ask, well, go read about it and show greater respect for those devoted to Maria Goretti, as well. One can argue she should have just listened to the commercials about implants that discard fertilized eggs from her system and play along, I doubt many will find this the way of the good, the beautiful and the true. But we are all just riding the little mouseville cars along the bumpy track ride, anyway, so what for’s you say.
I did intend to halt your treatise development, not realizing that you find mathematics complete in accounting for every quantum dot in the universe and in such not reductive materialism but truly inclusive. I did go too far out the beam in my eye by being so crass and begrudging, a gong without charity. But, if perhaps you missed a quantum dot in your attempt to account for total inclusive thought would your mathematics not remain as purely abstract as philosophy of the mind, or of any kind, really?
 
Last edited:
mkoopman said:
we are all just riding the little mouseville cars along the bumpy track ride
Click to expand...
I am hoping that the ride in your little mouseville car will be a pleasant one, even though the road may be bumpy. Good luck.
 
mkoopman said:
It is absolutely beyond the physical
[…]
rational persons can define the abstract. We can imagine a true perfection, a real circle, a love beyond human capacity. We can “know” God, in the way that a finite creature who is loved by the infinite God can, in this world.
Click to expand...
Imagine now that no one rational person exists… Like if Mr 45 presses his bigger button… Boom, all dead.
Now, do those things still exist?
Or did they stop existing when the last rational being died?
 
I can do well more than imagine the scenario you depict. Yet there is more reductive materialism in the yellow pages of the watery dome, or doom as your day appears to be going. Put those ideas out past the EMP limits. even if some fire and brimstone may punch holes in the asphalt when all is said and done.
That which goes up must come down.
So, the host of heaven is not rational?
Despite cancellation of the next generation, rational creatures, angels included, will remain. You need to repose your question without reductive materialism.
How is that done.
 
Are you really trying to use heaven and its souls and angels as a workaround to support the existence of immaterial concepts in the absence of material rational entities?
 
mkoopman said:
That which goes up must come down.
Click to expand...
That might be what some philosophers say, but a scientist can prove that it is false. A rocket can go up and never come down. It can do this by escaping the gravitational pull of the earth which occurs if it is fired with a velocity exceeding the escape velocity of the earth, which is about 7 miles per second at the surface of the earth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top