I don’t get the question. I understand that matter is one or the other depending on whether it’s being observed–and particles and waves each have attributes–but not aware of the concept “particle/wave” so can’t answer the question. What is your interpretation?
Okay I apologize for last post. After posting realized that what you reference is probably what I recall being called wave-particle duality and jumped on Wickipedia:
Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts “particle” or “wave” to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]
It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.
Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa.[2] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[3]
Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved; see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.
If I understand the above, the idea of pushing ‘wave-particle’ into a single term would be inappropriate as reality (quantumly speaking) can only be properly described from the perspective of one or the other…not both together. Is this a proper reading of the above quote?
Your claim is too premature and intellectually immature.
A thought of ‘a-square-circle’ has information of the empirical elements of ‘square’ and ‘circle’ that can be real individually but not as a combination.
Note ‘define’
dictionary.com/browse/define
In the above I have provided the meaning of the thought ‘square-circle’ i.e. what I meant by a square-circle as a linguistic object, not a real object that can be verified directly as real empirically and philosophically.
Note the focus here is on the definition of the ‘thought’ not the thing.
I can define what is a ‘contradiction’, i.e.
dictionary.com/browse/contradiction?s=t
Since a contradiction is definable, does it prove contradictions are possible to be real objects. A contradiction is only a thought without any corresponding real object.
One can define what is a “mirage” and see its attributes that can be grasped intellectually.
dictionary.com/browse/mirage?s=t
But is there a real object out there in the desert, sea or elsewhere that is the ‘mirage’ at the specific location the mirage appeared.
The thought or idea of God is no different from a sighted ‘mirage’ [illusion] that is claimed to be real.
It is the same way, you and theists has defined ‘God’ with attributes and the ultimate quality of ‘perfection’.
In this case, you are only attributing qualities to a thought [illusion] but not any real object that is thought.
In the case of God, it is impossible to be a real object that can be verified empirically and philosophically.
Btw, can you define God precisely as something real?
To define God is to condition God with limits.
Because God is supposed to be perfect, unlimited and unconditional, it is contradictory that God can be defined.
I have already argued in the OP why attributing ‘perfection’ to the thought of God make such thought as impossible to represent anything real empirically and philosophically.
Thus my point;
God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
Everything you posted after the above is the sort of dancing you’re using imo as an attempt to limit everyone else’s response to only your intellectual construct. Trying to limit me (and everyone else in the thread) to the limitations of your rules and regulations is just an all too familiar form of atheistic circularity (Come, let’s argue God together in my arena where the single rule is that only things in time and space are real. Now then, come tell me all about your God!) If you can set up the rules so you necessarily win all arguments, you will, in your own mind, win all arguments.
Empirical necessity and stiff categorical constraints are not pertinent to what I proposed. Set that stuff aside and quit dancing. The proper focus is a simple matter of information…that which has the power to in-form intellectual apprehension. Either a thing is able to provide or stimulate mental content or it is not, it’s that simple. Empirical and linguistic qualifications are irrelevant.
A true impossibility, as I’ve demonstrated several times now, is incapable of making an appearance in intellectual apprehension and cannot thus be discussed objectively. The concept “God” is not merely disqualified as being an impossibility but is a concept that has arguably been objectively discussed throughout history more than any other. You need to understand Prism, I’m not in any way making a case for God’s existence, empirically or any other way. Attention is ONLY on a comparison of one content of thought [square circle] in comparison to another [God] and establishing that the former is an impossibility–a token of the class of impossiblilities–of which God cannot be said to be a member, as you allege in the op.
If you can’t find a door out of your dogmatic hatred for the idea of God to grant intellectually honest consideration to a point of view coming at you from a different angle than your own machinations, then just stay in your dark fortress and don’t bother with a response.
And just drop my winner’s check in the mail, please.
PS: I question your authority to claim what is philosophically legitimate, btw.
Actually you are the one who is limiting the discussion within your intellectual [crude] and psychological impulses.
Note it is theists who claimed their God exists as real to the extent their God will listen and answers to a real creator who created the real universe.
Obvious in this case we have to define and agree what is real before we argue our stance.
My definition of real is,
the foundation of real is the empirical to the fundamental of space and time PLUS philosophical critical review.
So what is your definition of real?
We need to be precise here.
God in this case is an idea, i.e. merely a thought without empirical elements and groundings.
A concept is a thought with empirical grounding.
My point with ‘square-circle’ is merely an analogy.
If don’t get the point of this analogy, we can skip it.
I will find other analogies or other ways to exemplify my main argument.
What is critical is I have also provided an alternative answer to why theists would reify a thought which is illusory as real empirically and philosophically.
The answer is the basis of the idea [thought only] of God is driven by the subconscious fear of death response deep from the brain.
My crude psychological impulses tell me you won’t be sending a check, will you…?
I suppose I am don’t have a conclusion, just raising the issue that what seems impossible or paradoxical, might not be? A bit like non-euclidian geometry seemed like some mathematical fantasy, but then it turns out it actual maps our reality better than Euclidian geometry in certain circumstances. So, it’s what I think of when square-circles are whipped out. Yes, that sure seems like an oxymoron, but then…is it? I haven’t really tried to track where the square-circle came from in the context of this thread or why it got whipped out - or perhaps it was gently introducted, lol - but I thought I would throw in other things that seems like oxymorons, but aren’t or may not be. This is utterly beyond minds like Prismatic’s where the left brain cannot listen to the right brain and so thinks it can rule out all sorts of things with great certainty and also assert things with great certainty. It lives in a model and in that model things seem accessible to infallible deduction.
And what can possibly be done with a mind that thinks this…
Makes any sense.
I charitably assume we are dealing with English as a second language issue, but even assuming this we have serious problems since there seems to be no awareness that this is contributing to all sorts of problems.
The definition of the real begins with
‘the foundation of the real’
So the real is actually the foundation of the real. (?)
then we have ‘the empirical to the fundamental of space and time’
Possibly he meant ’ of the fundamental’ , though I am still left with a mess.
And somehow the real is the whatever is described in the first part of the sentence PLUS philosophical review.
Incredible. The real is some kind of empirical of the fundamental space and time (not the whole of space and time) PLUS philosophical review, which it seems is not part of the set of the empirical.
He seems to be mixing a definition of the real with a description (though a uselessly abstract one) epistemology.
It’s nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
The real is dependent on philosophical review. Or some other muddled concept. There were other equally odd sentences in his responses to you. And hey, that’s fine. We all can be unclear. But when it is couple with certainty and ad homs and often mindreading with no awareness of his own limitations with language, deduction and perview…
good luck is all I can say with the discussion.
Yep. Our friend Prismatic is a tough row to hoe, to use one of my grandfather’s sayings.
OK I agree language is a problem here [as below], but not the ‘principle’ intended.
If you are more knowledgeable, you would have roughly know [with Charity] what I am driving at with the bolded terms in the above definition of reality.
Here is a simpler explanation with an example.
What is real?
The foundation of what is real is the empirical.
The foundation of the empirical is space and time.
Whatever is empirical is limited.
To overcome the limitation of the empirical,
we need to filter the empirical with the tools of philosophy to do a meta-analysis, e.g. critical thinking, logic, rationality, wisdom, etc.
For example,
Scientific knowledge from Science possess the highest confidence of ‘what is reality’
The foundation of Science is empirical.
Cause and effect is a critical empirical concept in Science.
Cause and effect are important concepts in both science and engineering as science seeks to create explanations, and engineering seeks to reach design solutions. In some cases, cause and effect are straightforward; in other cases, cause and effect relationships are more complex and less apparent.
manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfl … and-effect
But ‘cause and effect’ are further reviewed critically by philosophers such a Hume and others to have further reservations from a philosophical point of view.
According to Hume, the scientific concept of cause and effect need to be qualified with its psychological basis via experience. From Hume’s theory, Kant reviewed causality deeper.
So in my definition of what is real I stated the empirical is the strongest foundation of ‘what is real’ but we cannot take that for granted by we need to dig deeper to establish a more sounder understanding of ‘what is real’. We do this with philosophy and its critical thinking and other tools as what Hume did with ‘causality’.
Application;
With the understanding of the above, we can question the proposition ‘God exists.’
One of the argument is based from cause and effect to God as the first cause.
But Hume argued cause and effect is grounded on psychology.
Therefore God as the first cause is also grounded on psychology.
The above is a very good hypothesis for further investigation.
Get it?
If not, what counter to the above can you offer?
Imperfection is a part of perfection. That’s also not an empirically objective truth, it’s subjective which you can’t prove. Your idea of “god” is why you find no proof. Can’t find proof for your own idea of it that doesn’t exist, the points have already been made to falsify that idea of God, the literal one, the entity, you didn’t make them, others did a long time ago, you argue against that same idea even when the idea is not accurate but just misunderstood. It’s a force of and in nature, not an entity or literal being in control. Since it is a force of and in nature then it means we as well may communicate with it, which is merely a higher conscious individual, it’s everything and nothing. The only way for all there is to be all there is, is to fit together, perfectly, which reality has done over a long span of time. You have the will or consciousness of it as well, by your ability to judge and criticize what exists while it does not exist because of you.
It’s like saying a pizza doesn’t exist when the pizza guy puts the pizza in front of you, because it isn’t matching your idea of pizza and since it doesn’t match your idea a perfect pizza can’t exist either, so not only do you disrespect the pizza dudes work but you also form an extreme bias that is inconsistent with logic/reason and full of holes, that’s ludicrous. Step back and view the metaphorical evidence for its being a force and nature.
Nah, in your pizza example, if the thing presented to me do not meet my expectation of what is a ‘pizza’, it is still something physical which can be verified to be exists as real.
In the case of God, there is ‘nothing’ that is presented at all.
If there is ‘nothing’ how can we verify whatever is claimed is real?
In the case of God, what is available for verification is, God is reducible to a “thought” in the mind of an individual. This is ‘100%’ certain.
Is this thought of God represented by anything verifiable to be real? No!
One of the best explanation to a claim of God which is not grounded to anything real is due to psychology, i.e. it is all in the mind.
Do you simply reject this possibility instead of investigating its possibility?
I have argued, the idea of God [illusory] is driven from the instinct of agencity [pattern recognition] by the early theists, driven deeper by the subconscious fear of death response to avoid death.
Prismatic “wrote:”
Plagiarism.
KT, it is difficult not to post good ideas on philosophy forums, but you need to be careful man!
Prismatic,
This statement is idealistic, because it assumes that there will be a philosophical consensus on what is real. Note the use of “we”. Who does “we” include? Can you explain this without bias?
LOL. It’s not my idea. It’s actually a fairly common one in comparative religion, history of religion, anthropology courses. Not his version with ‘deeper’ cause. Lol again.
KT,
Yes, fairly common from your perspective, but in years of debate, this is the first time I’ve seen Prismatic incorporate those ideas into his arguments.
Theists will likely support that.
What does the fear of death have to do with it? Not every god has an after life. So where’s the philosophical argument in that regard of there being “no fear of death” the understanding of what “god” is has nothing to do with fear of death or even any fear for that matter.
Don’t be so cheapo.
It is public knowledge. You’re insisting KT has a patent to the term or written a paper on that?
I have mentioned I am aware of the concept of agenticity from Michael Shermer, and many others have followed on that, e.g. Richard Dawkins and many other non-theists who used that to argue against theism.
I have also mentioned ‘agenticity’ is a secondary factor not a primary factor.
I have also counter argue, agenticity is not the strongest counter-point against theism. It is only one reason to explain how the idea of a god came about within the origin of theism. The desperate person of modern times who jump to cling to a God is not driven by agenticity but directly by the subconscious-fear-of-death impulses.
Nope that is very practical.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that [ALL] knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
The Empiricists claim Scientific Knowledge is the only real knowledge.
Thus this allow many Scientists to project arrogance which led the contemptible Scientism.
However, philosophy is the last bastion which has its sophisticated tools to analyze all knowledge claims to their highest limits and qualify whatever knowledge to its highest limits until as Wittgenstein proposed;
‘That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent’
God is merely an idea and a thought we cannot speak of in terms of reality, thus we must remain silent on the idea of God as real.
Note how from the highest scrutiny of philosophy, the following knowledge and questions are extracted;
Hume claim causality is actually due to experience, i.e. psychology, not an absolute principle.
Karl Popper argued and concluded, ‘Scientific knowledge are at best polished conjectures’
Note Russell’s
I believe you have not delved into the deepest realm of philosophy-proper, e.g. like Russell who came up with the limitations;
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
and most of all we must also understand why we are faced with such a limitation.
If you dig back to the old days when we were in the other forum “Philosophy Club”, I had already introduced the above concepts but perhaps in different forms and terms.
In those days, my approach was quite amateurish but since then I have taken serious efforts to develop positive quantum increments into the depths of my philosophical knowledge and approach.