[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
Flag*
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


[ Literature ] [ E-books ] [ Politics ] [ Science ] [ Religion ]

File: 139e7f31382b68c⋯.gif (66.98 KB,264x224,33:28,7dce5ec40fd2636e49b9c1874f….gif)

36d1f3 No.4887

As the thread says.

Finding a list of times the laws of reality have been successfully deducted is a hard thing because nobody cares, but think about the past times people have done it:

Greeks guessed that material was made of "atoms" and that was what held material together.

Albert Einstein guessed that gravity was composed of "waves" and on 2016 we learned this was true.

The above people did not have proof of their hypothesis, they simply reasoned or guessed it.

Smarter people simply seem to be able to pull it off.

Are ALL laws of the universe understandable through basic knowledge of the universe and then applied logic? Were the two above guesses just luck?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

36d1f3 No.4963

It's an open question if the Atomists were/are right. Einstein didn't guess. If nothing can be faster than ligtht it's the same thing with changes of gravitation fields. In this case it's kind of logic but i wouldn't consider the SRT basic knowledge of the universe.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

36d1f3 No.4964

>>4887

Yes, a posteriori a priori. Hegel did it.

This happens when laws are found to be specific determinations of a more general law from which the specific form derives. This has happened quite a few times in the last century, where the mathematics is discovered to provide for such a collapsing of "laws."

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

36d1f3 No.4965

I mean, this is the reason why theories exit. Without looking you can predict what is going to happen. That's also an indispensable criteroin for being able to falsify a theory like Newtons about time and space. But i think you are more into some kind of rationalism that synthesizes its knowledge from basic ideas, which are existing apriori in our minds (maybe like the carteasian meditations). So maybe your question is about the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments. -->Google

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

36d1f3 No.5041

>>4887

What you are referring to is, as you say, a set of hypotheses, not deductions per se.

But I assume your question is whether or not it's the case that all natural laws that are, as of yet, unobserved make enough sense to the human mind so as to, theoretically, be concievable well before the appropriate discoveries and actually informed hypotheses have been made.

Simple response is that there's no way to tell. Given that a 'law of nature' is a formulation made by the human mind, I would deem it possible. But this says nothing about the things that have necessitated or invited the formulation of the law in the first place.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

36d1f3 No.5045

File: 4d8d055b16cee00⋯.png (585.85 KB,946x2017,946:2017,kant.png)

You can prove some of them in the way that Kant did, by proving that things must work a certain way as a requisit for us to have experience of it at all. Of course this would then only apply to appearances, but what doesn't?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b2a6 No.5318

"Deducted" means "to subtract." As in, "My rent was deducted from my bank account." The word you want is 'deduced.'

After deducting the natural laws from logic, what's left? Isn't logic itself a natural law? Are you claiming logic meta-exists, transcending all other laws?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]