The obstaclean theory of matter is that idealism (any theory that denies the existence of the material world) won’t work because it can’t explain obstacles that get in our way. And that is matter. But what is matter good for? “Matter, in the end, is the atheist’s solution to the problem of evil.”
P2: What can I know?
Trapped in time
William Boyd on how mortality shapes our existence. “I am convinced that what makes our species unique among the fauna of this small planet circling its insignificant star is that we know we are trapped in time, caught briefly between these two eternities of darkness, the prenatal darkness and the posthumous one.” And yet, the philosopher might reply, do we have any good idea whether time is real or an illusion? Either way, however, Boyd’s answer to what we should do in view of our mortality is not bad advice: love and be loved.
Why physicists talk to philosophers … Part 4
Ivette Fuentes explains: “Science and philosophy share common goals. They aim at developing and deepening our understanding of reality, at uncovering the basic constituents of the Universe and its fundamental laws. Science and philosophy also share a common past. … But the overlap between science and philosophy is not only a matter of the past. In our present search for knowledge there are many moments in which the lines between them blur. Every single scientific theory and philosophical exploration starts with questions and with reflection upon them. Basic ideas are produced in order to provide answers to these questions. These ideas are developed though critical and logical thinking. At this point science and philosophy are indistinguishable. … Once a new scientific theory is proposed, it is not only confronted with experiments (when possible) but also to philosophical scrutiny. Once a theory is born, there is an unavoidable need to interpret the objects of the theory and its results. At this stage science and philosophy again come close together.”
Why physicists talk to philosophers … Part 3
Lee Smolin explains: “To aspire to be a revolutionary in physics, I would claim, it is helpful to make contact with the tradition of past revolutionaries. But the lessons of that tradition are maintained not in the communities of fashionable science, with their narrow education and outlook, but in the philosophical community and tradition. And that is why I talk with philosophers and encourage my students to do so.”
Why physicists talk to philosophers … Part 2
Carlo Rovelli explains: science is “a complex discipline that constantly critically rearranges its own assumptions” under the influence of philosophy, and “scientists who claim to do without philosophy are not really without philosophy; they hold a philosophical position without thinking and without being critical about it.”
Why physicists talk to philosophers … Part 1
Sean Carroll explains: “Science often gives us models of the world that are more than good enough, in terms of getting answers that fit the data within the error bars, even though they might not be completely coherent or well-defined. But that’s not really what drives us to do science in the first place. We shouldn’t be happy to do ‘well enough,’ or merely fit the data – we should be striving to understand how the world really works. Our best chance of achieving that outlandish ambition is for science and philosophy to work together.”
Hang in there!
Did Schopenhauer say, “Just remember, once you’re over the hill you begin to pick up speed”? No, but Peanuts did. The “outsourcing of erudition” makes you wonder how much we know thanks to Google etc. but also how much of it is just wrong.
Mary Midgley: a late stand for a philosopher with soul
Interview with Mary Midgley. “The moral philosopher has, in her 10th decade, become rather fashionable, as her fight to defend human consciousness against the likes of Richard Dawkins gathers admirers around the world.”
Embracing the unexplained …
… by putting the immaterial on the table? Is there any kind of thing in the universe in addition to the stuff physicists study?
In “Visions of the Impossible,” Jeffrey Kripal says: “After all, consciousness is the fundamental ground of all that we know or ever will know. It is the ground of all of the sciences, all of the arts, all of the social sciences, all of the humanities, indeed all human knowledge and experience. Moreover, as far as we can tell, this presence is sui generis. It is its own thing. We know of nothing else like it in the universe, and anything we might know later we will know only through this same consciousness. Many want to claim the exact opposite, that consciousness is not its own thing, is reducible to warm, wet tissue and brainhood. But no one has come close to showing how that might work. Probably because it doesn’t.” Under the circumstances, Kripal says, we need an account of consciousness that synthesizes the “Aristotelian” materialist understanding of consciousness with the “Platonic” nonmaterialist understanding.
In “Science Is Being Bashed by Academics Who Should Know Better,” Jerry Coyne replies: “When science manages to find reliable evidence for … clairvoyance, I’ll begin to pay attention. Until then, the idea of our brain as a supernatural radio seems like a kind of twentieth-century alchemy—the resort of those whose will to believe outstrips their respect for the facts.”
And in turn Kripal replies to Coyne in “Embracing the Unexplained, Part 2,” that Coyne’s piece is “name-calling and an attempt to control and manipulate the data so that the ‘proper’ conclusions are reached. My point is a simple one: If you put the ‘impossible’ data on the table, you will arrive at different conclusions.” And to make his case he calls on Barbara Ehrenreich’s “A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment” for support.
What is math about?
The mathematical world. Some philosophers — the Platonists — think math is about a mysterious other realm of eternal and unchanging entities. Others — the nominalists — think math is simply the manipulation of symbols according to rules we have made up. According to James Franklin, they’re wrong. His theory is Aristotelian realism: look around, and you can see math.
Socratically Speaking 