Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:52:04 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <9a2a982f-ffc2-b2a5-34eb-050b0d7be129@example.net> References: <495550f7-796e-4414-67ae-26d3f8ba16f1@example.net> <33442f75-5afe-ce6b-d5b2-19efc78a72d3@example.net> <2c1fb128-258b-7848-e896-3246674d460f@example.net> <2d814efc-b5f8-a1f9-d273-77016cb3cbae@example.net> <9cGcnY0c8c3LA8_6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <84211166-08c2-fd90-bfea-c1203f1d09db@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-1284326391-1733568725=:3169" Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1691010"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:61821 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1284326391-1733568725=:3169 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 12/6/24 12:12 PM, D wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote: >>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so >>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an >>>>>> outlet for all that aggression. >>>>> >>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil. >>>>> Science does not include them >>>> >>>>    The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS, >>>>    entirely our own inventions. >>>> >>>>    And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time. >>>> >>>>    Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ... >>> >>> More Kant-ian. >>> >>> His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself' >>> and how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it into >>> are not actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we >>> describe it to ourselves and to others. >>> >>> Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship >>> doesn't exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits >>> of wood. >>> >>> (The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and a >>> common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object after >>> having all of its original components replaced over time, typically one >>> after the other. >>> >>> In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens, >>> rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the Minotaur >>> and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians >>> would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to >>> honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After >>> several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece of the >>> Ship of Theseus were replaced, one after the other, was it still the same >>> ship? ) >>> >>> Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If you >>> are a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem because you >>> believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in reality. >> >> I would argue that the ones who most certainly do not have a problem with >> this are materialists. It's a bunch of atoms, and we can then make up >> labels. The problem guys are the platonists with their ideal heavens, >> concepts etc. which are forever beyond proof. The ding an sich is an absurd >> konzept an sich. If you postulate something which can never be known, it is >> kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a postulated first mover >> etc. >> >>> Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it >>> refers to. Meta data. A pointer. > > > Kant ? > > Try Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" tome. > > OK ... you'll go brain-dead after just a few > chapters ..... and it's like 1000 pages ...... > > BUT, he kinda DID prove that our "physics" can be > an emergent property of ultra-zillions of 'strings' > humming along with simple interaction rules - > cellular automata math. > > Ultimately, all 'materialistic'. > > But what WE make of it all, how we LIVE in it all ... > If he proved it, how come there has been so little talk about him in scientific circles? --8323328-1284326391-1733568725=:3169--