Philosophy can be really fun
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2011, 06:58 AM
Philosophy can be really fun
This short comic triggered me some thought processes.
I am not done with them so far but I found I'd share the comic

[Image: 511.jpg]

any thoughts of you people?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Observer's post
28-03-2011, 11:18 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
Well, the comic doesn't do much for me, except that it may be a play of false argument on the question of determinism. And the only thing I can say is my theory of determinism is that free will is a condition of seemingly random events caused by the margin of human error - as the margin of human error is reduced the randomness of events is reduced, leading to a better recognition of determinism.

Only in a perfect world, free will does not exist.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 12:27 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
The bear died because he did not drink. He did not drink because the bottle was empty. So Alp caused his death.

Approaching determinism with science, we get that Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible. No particle have a determined place and impusle, so the future is not yet decided.

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2011 03:08 PM by Observer.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(28-03-2011 12:27 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  The bear died because he did not drink. He did not drink because the bottle was empty. So Alp caused his death.
Hmm... Confused
Harold died because he did not drink. He did not drink because he had no water. Alp did not spill any water!

now what?


[Image: aaron.jpg] Aaron
[Image: alp.jpg] Alp
[Image: ferd.jpg] Ferd
[Image: harold.jpg] Harold

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 11:18 PM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
Selfish was meaning Aaron, but thought that character was alp. And it was a good explanation to the question.

I though say that it's Harold's own fault for believing he is unable to leave a room which people keep coming in and out of.

That he's "trapped" in this case is just a fallacy of the story.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
29-03-2011, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2011 02:51 PM by Observer.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(28-03-2011 11:18 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Selfish was meaning Aaron, but thought that character was alp. And it was a good explanation to the question
Harold died of dehydration, not poisoning...

I can hardly believe that the author of this comic thought this "paradox" up all by himself. Isn't this described somewhere in some philosophical textbook?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2011, 04:02 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2011 04:07 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
They are all guilty of murder, the claim was made that they all wanted to kill him, but no conspiracy.
(28-03-2011 12:27 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  Approaching determinism with science, we get that Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible. No particle have a determined place and impusle, so the future is not yet decided.
Seems interesting enough, because I would like to know he he determined that no particle could have determined place and impulse.

Wikipedia Wrote:Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 12:10 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(29-03-2011 04:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  They are all guilty of murder, the claim was made that they all wanted to kill him, but no conspiracy.
Allright... Clear to me!

but... What immediate cause was there for his death.
Dehydration clearly... Does that make the actions of Ferd more effective then those of Alp?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 02:53 AM
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
(28-03-2011 12:27 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  Approaching determinism with science, we get that Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible. No particle have a determined place and impusle, so the future is not yet decided.

I think I agree with TrainWreck. The fact we don't and can't know what the place and impulse are doesn't mean that it wasn't caused by prior effects or that the future is or isn't decided. I call non-sequitur.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 05:39 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2011 05:53 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophy can be really fun
Okay, Ferd and Alp are guilty, because both of their methods lead to dehydration; and Aaron is guilty of attempt.
(30-03-2011 02:53 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  
(28-03-2011 12:27 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  Approaching determinism with science, we get that Heisenberg's principle makes it impossible. No particle have a determined place and impusle, so the future is not yet decided.
I think I agree with TrainWreck. The fact we don't and can't know what the place and impulse are doesn't mean that it wasn't caused by prior effects or that the future is or isn't decided. I call non-sequitur.
I'm sure, I have seen this uncertainty principle deployed in other determinism discussions - though reading. I see Einstein had some arguments:
Einsteins slit Wrote:Consider a particle passing through a slit of width d. The slit introduces an uncertainty in momentum of approximately h/d because the particle passes through the wall. But let us determine the momentum of the particle by measuring the recoil of the wall. In doing so, we find the momentum of the particle to arbitrary accuracy by conservation of momentum.
Einsteins Box Wrote:Consider a box filled with light. The box has a shutter that a clock opens and quickly closes at a precise time, and some of the light escapes. We can set the clock so that the time that the energy escapes is known. To measure the amount of energy that leaves, Einstein proposed weighing the box just after the emission. The missing energy lessens the weight of the box. If the box is mounted on a scale, it is naively possible to adjust the parameters so that the uncertainty principle is violated.

Why are we concerned about sub-atomic stuff when it comes to determinism?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: