Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
- Posts: 723
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Thinking critical wrote: ↑
April 14th, 2018, 12:03 pm
Therefore we can never scientifically explain the being of the subject.
This position rejects the possibilty of obtaining new information, argument from ignorance.
This is an ontological standpoint. I could have said instead: "We can never scientifically explain the being of matter or the being of the universe". We can perhaps understand
the being of subjectivity and the being of the universe, but empirical science cannot touch these questions because they are essentially philosophical. The same applies to your other remarks. That subjectivity and matter are interdependent does not mean that all matter is conscious. An embryo is not conscious, but it will be. And that it will be conscious is not something that can happen or not happen when we think of the universe as a whole. The universe is inhabited, it is made of objects for subjects, whoever or whatever those subjects happen to be. The universe is our universe, we give it a meaning and reason for being.
We all have our own ways of seeing things, but I only wanted to clarify my points because I think you misunderstood some of my basic ideas.
- Posts: 771
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
How lucky. A movement of energy up, down, sideways by the TOE like a G wand. It makes up realities and then vanishes them as untrue or too harsh. You like a Prince toiling down your life looking down at the wand that made you a toad. Weep to a reality of quantities. I am like you in the mirror of intuition. My big TOE takes me to places that ask me for numbers and papers. I (myself) look pass the wand to the kiss of reality. My big TOE comes alive to the envy of none. Carry on.
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: July 13th, 2018, 4:17 am
I saw this film this afternoon and I simply loved it. We all know it is the story of Stephen Hawking the brilliant Professor of theoretical physics at Oxford University who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) in 1963 and was given 2 years to live. In the interim he married a friend of his sister and together they had three children
IMO the film was beautifully told, well acted by all and had me glued to the screen for the entire 2 hours.
Eddie Redmayne plays Stephen Hawking and his performance was nothing short of brilliant. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be nominated for Best Actor. So far this year the only other contender for Best Actor has been J. K. Simmons in Whiplash who likewise was brilliant
Eddie Redmayne however played an amazing role and the contortions and contractors of his body IMO were identical to anything I have ever seen of Stephen Hawking. How he did what he did with his facial expressions and hand and feet movements was beyond incredible.
In the final hour of the movie after Hawking was in Bordeaux attending a symphony he collapsed in the audience with pneumonia and cannot breathe. The suggestion by the doctor to his wife Jane was that they remove the respirator and allow him to die. Jane refuses and agrees to a tracheotomy which will render him unable to ever speak again.As a result he acts the final hour or so acting without speaking. It was a remarkable performance
This film is definitely high on my list but there re several more blockbusters due to open later this month that also smack of Oscar potential.
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: October 7th, 2018, 12:50 pm
A Theory of Everything will never happen -- except in the "Mind of God". The universe has infinite complexity; the human mind is finite. We could never in a million years even determine which numbers the infinite list of primes comprises.