I think I've read that springer.com thing already. I think that the efforts to try to make determinism seem compatible with QM and misplaced. I believe that determinism is just wrong. Einstein believed in it, after all. 
The Devil's Chaplain
Sort:
May 3, 2022
0
#23
Optimissed wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Darkunorthodox wrote>><<Berkeley, one of the 3 great british empiricists, was a subjective idealist.>>
I wouldn't consider Berkeley to have been an empiricist at all. There was a tendency to mistakenly categorise all the British philosophers that came in basically what was the Enlightenment period as empiricists, probably because the Enlightenment came at a time when scientific advancement was very much at the forefront. I doubt, however, that there's a single historian of philosphy who would, without misgiving, classify the good Bishop as an empiricist. That's because he wasn't one. Yet again, what he WAS, was a solipsist.
WIKI: <<George Berkeley (/ˈbɑːrkli/;[5][6] 12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) – known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne of the Anglican Church of Ireland) – was an Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the minds and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived. Berkeley is also known for his critique of abstraction, an important premise in his argument for immaterialism.[7]>>
He ALSO believed that everything was simply a product of the human mind. The later Berkeley (he changed his stance) then came to believe that it was, instead, the product of the celestial mind. They made him into a bishop for that!
I have a funny feeling that you're feeling your way .... and that you are seeking to justify a form of ideal immaterialism or subjective idealism or whatever .... which in turn justifies certain types of belief. Anyway, that's my guess. And your hostility is because I've expressed my attitude to that already, and my attitude is not positive.
my hostility is pointing out that your knowledge in this area is amateurish despite your superb ability to use google.
I have been openly a defendant of Absolute idealism (not exactly a popular position since logical positivism reared its ugly head ) my entire philosophical career, from my 4 years in undergrad only studying philosophy, to my time at U of Miami and Johns Hopkins in graduate work, before i left. You are vastly overestimating my capacity to care what you think about any of this lol.
Hi, I'm not really in the mood to answer you but I'll have a bash. I accept that you see yourself as a proponent of Absolute Idealism and originally I supposed that it's a convenient way for you to support a strong, religious belief. However, we cannot discuss religion or we will be closed down. Anyway, I rationalised your support of the philosopher we were discussing (Bradley I think) in that manner. I don't personally like any philosophy which is not an attempt to unify all philosophy. My own work does this from the very basics ... the absolute fundamentals of human thought. I believe I've found the way to get at the very basics in a way that no-one in the Western Tradition has managed. One might think that my ideas are Hegelian but that would be to over-simplify them. Where Hegel found the thesis, antithesis and synthesis to be sufficient, I used that idea more in the tradition of some strands of Ancient Chinese thought and arrived at a synthesis of the Absolute and the Relative, such that what I came up with can be seen as the basis of all philosophising and all philosophy. From it comes the Ancient Chinese Book of Change, for instance. The I Ching. From it comes all the bipolarities of Western philosophy. Therefore, you can imagine I'm sceptical of "one sided ideas" because, to be complete, a balance is necessary, between the material and the transcendental.
Transcendental roughly means anything beyond your teeth, in either direction.
That is, subjective and "objective", although the objective doesn't really exist, since all that can be said for it is that it consists of the *attempt* to be objective, with no guarantee of success and, indeed, a probable guarantee of failure.
Therefore, in a way, my ideas also could be said to fall roughly within the "subjective idealist" sphere. I am, or consider myself to be, a dualist and subjectively inclined, because it is via the subject that we can arrive at the closest approximation to truth, which in ideal form is a depiction of a simplified truth system.
Also, due to your obvious but weird hostility to me, which may be difficult to explain, and which you pretend is due to "lack of knowledge" in me or "my ability to use Google", I get the sense that at least part of you gets the feeling that I am, indeed, a great deal more intelligent than you are. I wouldn't have brought it up except that you make it so obvious, that you seek to explain it by "some form of cheating". But I just have a very high IQ. I mean, very high.
my gosh, this whole thing reeks of freshman naivete. It would be more humorous if it wasnt so sad.
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.
I did read up a great deal on QM when my son decided to do a PhD in theoretical physics, so I could hold a conversation with him on the subject. I became very interested in it and believe I came to understand the ideas involved. That was over a decade ago.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
my gosh, this whole thing reeks of freshman naivete. It would be more humorous if it wasnt so sad.
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.>>
I'm sorry but to be taken seriously in any way, you need to be specific and to criticise specific ideas in an exact manner. So far as I can see, you've said nothing that identifies you as being knowledgeable on this subject. Only your assertions that you are, which are becoming less believable by the second.
I hope you understand that I'm being very lenient with you. Most people would just mark you down as a random idiot who's pretending knowledge of philosophy that he's Googled, much as you accused me of doing. Except I can tell you look like a fake and I can tell you've no idea to whom you're talking. So I'm going easy and giving you a chance. You made a fool of yourself and came out with some ideas that seem very mistaken but if there's a 10% chance you're being sincere, you're being given that chance. But I think, to be honest with you, that you look like a fake. However, you might have studied philosophy of religion or something that isn't actually philosophy. So you get one more chance not to be a complete pillock.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.
i’m sorry too. hoped that you’ll be a lighthouse, and you turned out to be a land mind..
BellGuard wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.
i’m sorry too. hoped that you’ll be a lighthouse, and you turned out to be a land mind..
Yep, he certainly looks like a fool. But let's give him a chance?
no. lol.
Did you know that magic is real?
At least, I think it is. We can think and sometimes, the universe somehow does what we want.
sounds like manipulating… the whole universe
Just small parts of it. Like, if you had a favourite football team and they were drawing, and 90 minutes had been played, it was one minute into injury time, so you switch off the TV, close your eyes and visualise your team scoring .... homing in on the goal, the ball flying towards the net, into the goal, the net bulging .... and they do score at exactly that second.
Do you think it's possible that your thoughts might have helped that to happen or even, maybe, caused it?
May 3, 2022
0
#34
BellGuard wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.
i’m sorry too. hoped that you’ll be a lighthouse, and you turned out to be a land mind..
Its an aquatic mind obviously
May 3, 2022
0
#35
Optimissed wrote:
I hope you understand that I'm being very lenient with you. Most people would just mark you down as a random idiot who's pretending knowledge of philosophy that he's Googled, much as you accused me of doing. Except I can tell you look like a fake and I can tell you've no idea to whom you're talking. So I'm going easy and giving you a chance. You made a fool of yourself and came out with some ideas that seem very mistaken but if there's a 10% chance you're being sincere, you're being given that chance. But I think, to be honest with you, that you look like a fake. However, you might have studied philosophy of religion or something that isn't actually philosophy. So you get one more chance not to be a complete pillock.
I look like a fake? XD
wth does a philosophy graduate student LOOK like?
Personally I think that would be really easy, compared with causing peace in Ukraine.
One of them looks like me but one that sounds like you would be quite an anomaly. You couldn't pass a philosophy degree, at a good university, with that attitude to the subject. So either you're pretending in one way, or in another.
To explain for the mentally disabled, either you are pretending to be a philos. graduate or you are pretending to have that negative attitude to sound me out. It's looking strongly like the former, though.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
BellGuard wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Im sorry bro. I shoudnt be so harsh on the handicapped.
i’m sorry too. hoped that you’ll be a lighthouse, and you turned out to be a land mind..
Its an aquatic mind obviously
me gusta agua but really…
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
OK we agree on the question I asked.