Thread: OT question
View Single Post
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_] The Natural Philosopher[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT question

On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.


Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.


If only philosophers through the ages had appreciated that universal
wisdom, they'd have saved so much time, and perhaps been able to do
something useful instead.

They have and they did.

What you don't understand is just what that is.

If you go back to Occam, for example, (13th century) it is patently
obvious that he took as his *starting point* the notion that theories
are not true. Which is why he could point out that arguing over which
one *was* true was pointless. We should, he said, simply select the one
that was only just complicated enough to explain what needed to be
explained.

It's all very well to say - as Wittgenstein did - 'concerning what
cannot be talked about, we might as well shut up' - but humans do a lot
of talking about things that they know little or nothing about, using
notions that dont hold water, and the proper business of philosophers is
often to point that out.

The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.

Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of humanity,
as far as possible and see them for what they are - constructions.

To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought -
and succeeded - in usurping democractic power from the nation states
that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its exercise of
such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the *wrong*
side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of Europe,.
being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical continent'
'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation states that
exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that purports to
represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, but by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are 'leaving
Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they are
aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We are
not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing and
propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less sophisticated
you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the territory*. The
entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has no clearly defined
real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU = we
are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture, and
European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word 'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictional and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee' brothers
into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality model that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics' and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All designed
to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and valuable
members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.




*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both
second rate minds.




--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)