Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: Theories Of The Gaps

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,563
    Rep Power
    11
    The RCC tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with theology. I believe that was Thomas Aquinas' forte.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    All of the unknowns are with regard to things smaller than an atomic nucleus
    What if most of the universe is made of "things smaller than an atomic nucleus"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    , or larger than our solar system.
    Well, that's the whole of the universe for you...

    And remember we just learnt recently that Pluto wasn't a planet after all...

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    You are less qualified to comment on this subject than my cat.
    Be careful here, since Schrödinger, we know cats have learnt enough of quantum physics to be dead and alive at the same time.
    EB

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    I had an odd little thought while reading some damned blog where some Christian apologists were mixing rank theology and Christian apologisms with philosophy and metaphysics. We are all familiar with the idea of "the God Of The Gaps", where any little gap in knowledge is a place to smuggle in God as an explanation. But I realized we can see the same sort of thing in metaphysics. If something in metaphysics is not provable, than any bad metaphysics with an agenda is stuffed into that gap. One can divorce any metaphysical idea from reality by this trick.

    This is why i hate metaphysics.
    I would have thought metaphysics is essentially about nothing but non-provable things.

    Good metaphysics is logical. Bad metaphysics isn't.

    Maybe more people prefer bad metaphysics.

    Science is good metaphysics but you still have many gaps in it, some as large as a Black Hole, literally.

    Let's scientists do the job they're paid for. Most people don't have the luxury to spend time on any scientific theory. For most people, the rational thing to do, because it's much more economical, is to believe God did it.

    But you're free to disagree.
    EB

  4. Top | #14
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,491
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,704
    Rep Power
    52
    Now here's a chance for the philosophers who value metaphysics to step up and demonstrate how their arguments actually laid the base for current scientific understandings. Maybe one should try a bit of metaphysics on something more relevant than God or the unprovable, say, to putting some metaphysical thought into how one might measures dark matter and energy. A chance to form a path from unprovable to provable.

    To date all I read there is snit dung. 'fraid of a challenge?

  5. Top | #15
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    What if most of the universe is made of "things smaller than an atomic nucleus"?
    Yes.

    All of it can be thought of as being smaller than the smallest thing a human can perceive.

    The question is: Is there any functional component smaller than a human can perceive or break apart with collisions?

    This would prevent humans from ever gaining absolute knowledge.

  6. Top | #16
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,491
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,704
    Rep Power
    52
    Let's stipulate humans aren't going to gain absolute anything for already demonstrated observations by such as Godel, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and others. IOW limitations have already been stipulated by those who have gone way further into the realm of knowing than any here will ever venture.

    Couple that with limitations like travel speed limits, human mortality, etc, etc, etc, and we must just be happy with our telescopes for big and small.

    As for breaking apart it's already been determined measurement as we know it is finite, can't be reduced below a length limen.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Now here's a chance for the philosophers who value metaphysics to step up and demonstrate how their arguments actually laid the base for current scientific understandings. Maybe one should try a bit of metaphysics on something more relevant than God or the unprovable, say, to putting some metaphysical thought into how one might measures dark matter and energy. A chance to form a path from unprovable to provable.

    To date all I read there is snit dung. 'fraid of a challenge?
    It's called METAphysics for a reason.

    You're asking the equivalent of..."What has science ever done to help our understanding of undetected particles or abstract concepts?"

  8. Top | #18
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,491
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,704
    Rep Power
    52
    OH, I'm aware that scientists are trying to discover ways to measure what they know is there but can't see or measure. but, Uh no. I wa thinking more along the lines of Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...rimental_P.pdf

    That is applying experimental technique to intuitions such as the problem of measurement. Can one justify the notion that something that can be found by looking at what can't be seen but can be intuited by looking at differences in phenomena and measurement of properties of what is seen move intuitions about what can't be can't be seen to discovering how it can be seen.

    It's an area that has been set up several times, but, continues to fail because of lack of interest by philosophers.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,425
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,309
    Rep Power
    56
    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
    Cheerful Charlie

  10. Top | #20
    Shrunken Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    2,427
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    4,601
    Rep Power
    60
    42, obviously.

    (Since Lemuel lost weight)
    If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to a library. - Frank Zappa

Similar Threads

  1. Theories of Consciousness
    By lpetrich in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2018, 08:56 PM
  2. Theories of personality
    By lpetrich in forum Social Science
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 10:54 PM
  3. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 10:26 PM
  4. You won't believe these conspiracy theories
    By Perspicuo in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-28-2015, 06:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •