Things that are self-refuting are false | Tim Maudlin and Michael Della Rocca battle over reality
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 04. 2024
- Tim Maudlin and Michael Della Rocca go head to head over what makes up reality. Should we rely on common sense or metaphysics?
This excerpt is taken from the debate 'Fragments of reality,' from the HowTheLightGetsIn festival that took place in London in September of 2023.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/fragments-and-re...
From the sea to the sky, from tables to chairs, light to dark, before to after, we see the world as differentiated into countless bits, qualities, and relations. But from the outset of Western thought, some have maintained this is a dangerous illusion. One of the first philosophers, Parmenides, claimed 'what exists is whole and unchanging, one and continuous'; while today there are sociologists and linguists, neuroscientists and philosophers who argue that the distinctions we make are a function not of reality but of language.
Do we need to give up the idea that the world is differentiated and take Parmenides and Spinoza's idea that the world is one seriously? Should we see differences and distinctions as a product of language and the human mind? Would this make us more open to different ways of seeing the world or fatally undermine knowledge and our ability to communicate?
#CommonSense #Metaphysics #Reality
Tim Maudlin is professor of philosophy at New York University and a world-leader in the field of philosophy of physics. He is the author of the recently published Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory and made his name studying the mysterious behaviour of entangled quantum particles. Maudlin warns that we should be wary of physical theories that contradict our direct impression of reality, especially when it comes to the nature of time.
Michael Della Rocca is Sterling Professor of Philosophy at Yale University where he has taught since 1991. He is the author of Representation and the Mind-Body Problem in Spinoza, Spinoza, The Parmenidean Ascent, and of numerous articles in contemporary metaphysics and early modern philosophy.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Common sense says the square root of -1 doesn't exist. So quantum physics is false by Tim's logic.
When I got to shores of the SEA OF SADNESS my choice was to be or not to be, I let go. I fell, beneath consciousness into the void. All slipped away. But a great fright surged and I took hold of my only me and came back. I've never been back.
What I don’t get about Maudlin’s position, is how he accepts nonlocality, without accepting monism. If there is no such thing as distance between two separate subjects, what choice do you have but to accept that only one continuous subject exists?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Common sense isn’t sacrosanct, but we would need very good reasons to reject it.
Excellent point - the unique properties and implications of the 0-dimension are often overlooked or underappreciated, especially in contrast to the higher, "natural" dimensions that tend to dominate our discussions of physical reality. Let me enumerate some of the key differences:
The phenomena of nature that we discover are not a final limit to knowledge. That is what quantum mechanics has revealed, such as wave-particle duality. The explanatory limits of the wave are that it is outside the strange quantum world, where metaphysics reveals itself.While the appearance of the particle comes as a response to a higher action, the logic of nature is nothing but the response of existence to what is a teleological creation, that is, nature’s response to man for his development in history.
I agree with mdr, however, we can think of events which is becoming, not being. There are spatial distinctions that are connected
One philosopher said when you name a thing you destroy that thing. I agree with Hoffman and Kastrup who argue that everything is in consciousness and we perceive the world through a headset of time and space that creates the illusionary reality that we then experience.
If there is no truth, then the statement itself would be false, as it claims something to be true. “You should not judge.” is a judgment in itself, refuting its own advice.
Tim really doesn't know about abstract thought.
"Let me be the representative of common sense here"
I don't know about all that philosophy, but he has a serious misconception about the wave function. Bad, bad....really bad analogy.
Tim Maudlin screams “I need to be right AND F anyone who threatens that”
Isn't this alphabetical exodus and all of our best ideas not dependent upon a sea of metaphysics that led to that one inspiration that gets plucked and advanced from all others that appear bad today but may find in our future to be valuable ? Doesn't the ptolemaic model stand as a great metaphysical example taught for our measure ? Weigh it upon our modern ptolemaic evolution where it has been in combat with every gallaleo conprencous discovery from code of life DNA on to 90% of our best moden explanatory power that's it eaten of adopted and proven to play musical chairs of super positions to get the answer it wants ?
Common sense? Is that really a thing? "Things that are false are not true" is not a true statement in and of itself. It is not specific enough. Subjectivity and perspective play a role in generalities. Reason, skepticism, very subjective but very relevant in considering metaphysical concepts. Especially since most human reality is just a story we tell ourselves to try and explain what the hell is going on....
Is that a real battle, or is battling real...
Common sense against the first-person conscious perspective we all experience...what a joke.
Tim kicks ass again.
Superposition in the wave function and the measure problem is in a sense also self-refuting: it does not cohere with human logic. So human logic is not the ultimate arbiter perhaps. At least you don't have to scream to your opponent, who is being a reasonable classical philosopher reaching back to examples from antiquity
"This statement is false"....wtf is "false" in this context? Just a play on words or the word false itself has no meaning or is caught in a brain loop. Every statement we make is about something wrt space, time, existence etc