Metaphysics and Epistemology


Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 216 
I have written a short paper on an issue that I have not come across before. In it I attempt to argue that light waves are an opaque barrier between the eye of the observer and the objective world. And, that light waves prevent direct knowledge of objects in the world. I would be grateful for criticism and responses. Bert

What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I have a following trouble.

If I want to defining some word, and I want that my definition will be correct in the meaning of Semantical Conception of Truth or Classical, I have to know something about object, attribute or relation that I want to define. In other words: If I wand define "wisdom" I have to know what the wisdom is. If I don't know what the wisdom is, my definition will be arbitrary and could be incorrect (not in logical meaning but in ontological meaning), it would be fake definition.

The question is: How would I know about the subject, object, relation, attribute to give its proper definition ?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I am currently studying objections to modal realism for a section of something I'm writing, and am wondering if people can help me with questions about two related objections which seem important to me. My questions are: are there existing sources for these objections, and if so, what are they?

Reality as a whole could have been different

One objection I would like to find more sources for is the idea that reality as a whole (in the most unrestricted sense) could have been different. Lewis's modal realism leads to the conclusion that the whole system of worlds is the way it is necessarily, but intuitively reality as a whole could have been different, so this is a mark against the theory.

I have found one source for this objection - Williamson's 'Necessary Existents', where he says:

'Even if there are mutually disconnected spatiotemporal systems such as Lewis postulates, they are not the distinctive subject matter of modal discourse. They are simply more of what there is, about which we ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Such person would consider the meaning of all words to be vague(including the meaning of the word "vague") and think that actually we do not know what we are talking about(including this sentence itself) even though we feel that we know very well about what we are talking about. Therefore all of our knowledge presented in the form of language is nonsense(including this sentence itself).

For example:
A: Truth is any statement that corresponds to the reality.
B: What does "correspond" mean? What does "reality" mean? What does "statement" mean?
A: "Correspond" means XXX, "reality" means XXX, and "statement" means XXX.
B: Then what does XXX mean?
A: ...
(And B would even question the meaning of his own sentences.)

It seems to me that such absolute-skepticism is invincivle. Any argument against it would be considered nonsense according to this theory. We might well ask, in what situation can the meaning of a word be "clear"? Philosophy is not as exact and accurate as math (perhaps math is ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

             Alcubierre Space-Time Bubbles



How about the Alcubierre Space-Time bubble? Here we find ourselves riding a ‘shock wave’ of space-time. My research into absolute rest suggests that the interior of Alcubierre’s bubble is not immune to the effects of quantum-entropy if the quantum field geometrics theory I’ve proposed is correct. The universe, being a history of interactions, can be theoretically mapped as a series of relativistic Feynman exchanges, so if his bubble moves through space, it interacts via field geometrics. Conversely, if his bubble is stationary, it has to be asked, “Can you speed up entropy by finding absolute rest?” It poses a possible solution to the Moses on Mount Sinai/accelerated aging that was alleged to occur. *    NOTE:  “The radiant face of Moses”…  Admittedly, I’ve found no reference to this ‘advanced aging’ in the bible so it seems to be more of a Hollywood addition in the Charlton Heston classic, ‘The Ten Commandments’. Closest biblica ... (read more)

Latest replies:
  • Daniel Park, 2015-05-18 : QGD stand for Quantum GravitoDynamics and is a quantum gravity theory I have constructed. I will post a paper on this on... (read more)
Permanent link: Reply



                        Encoding the Nonphysical in a Physical System



“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

 Stephen Hawking


     The subtle link between non-physically encoded information in a physical system may be foundational. One may consider the example of neo Lamarckism, in which a generational millennia of memeplexes spurs viral informationism amongst a species. Once thought to be rubbish, this theory is making a comeback as we learn that states of consciousness can affect DNA. (Cite: Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian temptation, by David Haig) Take the example of a jaguar, it is bound to the same laws of physics as the quark to the extent that neither is capable of violations of such laws but when confronted with the hard question of consciousness you eventually run out options as far as irreducible complexity is con ... (read more)

If you come across this paper while researching philosophy of love, you should watch this:
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

John Searle is one of my favorite philosophers, but I fear remarks he makes in Rationality in Action about the role of rules in logic qualify as veritable "howlers".  He writes:

The correct thing is to say that the rules of logic play no role whatever in the validity of valid inferences.  The arguments, if valid, have to be valid as they stand.  (20).

But how is it that we determine when arguments are "valid as they stand"?  That is, how do we tell whether they have that all-important truth-preserving character?  I know I use rules of logic, rules like modus ponens, viz. "protasis, conditional, apodosis" (conveniently representable symbolically as "(p&(p->q))->q").

Is there some other useful way of determining validity in an argument?  Surely there is no way of identifying validity apart from identifying truth-preservingness, and how do you identify truth-preservingness without alluding to some kind of rule?  In particular, how would you show that a mathematical proof is valid withou ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


Tarski’s convention T: condition beta. South American Journal of Logic. 1, 3–32.

John Corcoran and Leonardo Weber


HISTORICAL NOTE: This paper is the culmination of a years-long joint effort by the two authors. A preliminary report appeared in 2013: Corcoran-Weber, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 19 (2013) 510–11. Their co-operative work was conducted by email dialogue in which each author’s work was developed and corrected by the other. Each section went through several iterations. The final version was the result of dozens of reciprocal exchanges; it is impossible to allocate credit. Each author learned from and taught the other. During this time they consulted several other scholars including the Tarski experts David Hitchcock, James Smith, and Albert Visser.

The senior author expresses his deep gratitude to the junior author. Moreover the senior author acknowledges publicly what he has already said privately, viz. that without the junior author’s help and mastery of ... (read more)

If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread!

I would like to know where I can find arguments in favor of the assertion: that there are no first causes, and that there are no things that do not change. Maybe some work of Dr McZed, or if you want to contribute some ideas in favour or against the mentioned assertion, it would be great.  
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Dear All


Please forgive me for any grammatical errors. I am not native English speaker.

Actually I am not professionally related to philosophy or anything near it. But I have always been attracted to the philosophy of mind and concept of "self". I have been thinking about it some times but since there is no one around that I can talk to about it, I felt I can share my thoughts in a forum to be evaluated.

What I have been thinking about is how "self" could emerge from brain activities (say material). I have reached a hypothesis but I want to know if it makes any sense to anyone else.

The scheme is roughly like this:

Let's assume that we have a network which can "categorize" inputs and also is able to operate in form of "p => q" logic. This network is not self aware. Actually it has no "self".

Let's assume that premise has been defined in this network which implies: "for every object which is categorized as A (= thought) then it must have been initiated by an object which is categor ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

This seems a simple mistake, and it should consequently be simple to rectify it. 

In particular, since the bulk of the translation was done by G.E.M. Anscombe in 1958, and the front page of the fourth edition states "The German text, with an English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte", Anscombe should be appropriately credited. 

First of all:
I dont think anybody doubts about the vital importance of spirituality for mankind (of course if you doubt, put your reasons under discussion ) .
So we must examine this concept and know its exact meaning and nature.
I think that one of the most important questions is whether we can imagine spirituality without religion? or at least without considering a personal agent as God?
I think no. We can not...then we will have no concrete foundation

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


JOHN CORCORAN AND HASSAN MASOUD, Three-logical-theories redux.

  The 1969 paper, “Three logical theories” [1], considers three logical systems all based on the same interpreted language and having the same semantics.

  The first, a logistic system LS, codifies tautologies (logical truths)—using tautological axioms and tautology-preserving rules that are not required to be consequence-preserving.

  The second, a consequence system CS, codifies valid premise-conclusion arguments—using tautological axioms and consequence-preserving rules that are not required to be cogency-preserving [2]. A rule is cogency-preserving if in every application the conclusion is known to follow from its premises if the premises are all known to follow from their premises.

  The third, a deductive system DS, codifies deductions, or cogent argumentations [2]—using cogency-preserving rules. The derivations in a DS represent deduction: the process by which conclusions are deduced from premises, i. e. the way knowl ... (read more)

The Problem of Evil is not a problem at all unless "Good" and "Evil" are properly defined and meaningfully understood; or else, the problem cannot be raised.

Given that meaning is usage, let's look at what we usually do not absolutely consider to be the meaning of Good.
  • Good is not painlessness. For, in our daily usage, it is commonly accepted that Good usually involves pain (e.g. in exercise, study, work).   
  • Good is not absence of grief or sorrow. For, if that was the case, the sense of a loss of Good would not exist; which would in turn imply that the sense of Good itself doesn't exist. It is possible for Good to exist along with grief (for instance, when someone in a world X which is free of a particular Evil, say starvation, is sad about people in a world Y, where people are starving). In this sense, sympathy, grief, and compassion are virtues; i.e. they are good.  
  • So if Good is not the absence of pain or sorrow, then what is Good? Before we answer that question, let's submit that E ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


The writing describes a new sort of individual, “a delude”. People like Hitler would well fit the description. He was mentally healthy, however overwhelmed by grossly deluded opinions.

Here is the description from the text: 

"Even when a person is born possessing a healthy mental state, the familial and environmental assault during childhood with deluded opinions and behavior can be the basis for an individual to develop into a delude, an individual in a deluded mental state. In this writing, the label fool, or imbecile, is sometimes interchangeable with the underlying primary conditions of the delude. A fool is predisposed to accept deluded opinions as true; however, he or she can have an overall good awareness of social norms and laws that he or she learned to comply with. A fool is not, because of his mental condition alone, a villain. In contrast, the delude typically develops overwhelming extreme views. These views can be held as more important than any social or legal consideration ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

The Phrenological Argument, also known as God's Parapraxis*, offers a new intriguing philosophical argument about God's mental state of inadequacy in his creation of the Human Mind. 

It argues that if God has a perfect mind capable of knowing flawlessly everything in advance without making mistakes, then he should have anticipated ahead of time the repercussion of creating a human mind incapable of knowing what is real and what is true. But he created the human mind that lacks the ability to fathom Truth and Reality, hence God's Mind carries an erroneous lapse somewhere in his memory. This mental erracity provides a good solid evidence that proves God's inadequacy to foreknow in advance that if the human mind is incapable of knowing reality, He will never ever be known. 

The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1. God created the mind 
2. The mind can't detect truth and reality
3. therefore, god will never be known. 

A modified version:
1. If god created the mind for men to know him
2. But god ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

The ideas of Zero and One are abstract concepts. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of the abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist outside the mind - the physical world - the world outside of ourselves - the inherent world that exists long time independently before the mind. 

However, although 0&1 are created by definition, association, representation and assumption, can we say that these numbers are solid objects or physical materials? If I write 0 and 1 on a paper, are they materially or physically real? Can we consider the written numbers proof of their existence? Can the numbers be proven as solid evidence prescribed by the scientific method to be real? How can we validate the paper evidence to be true, false, valid, or real ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 20 / 216