Reply to: Philosophy v Physics

[d000hg]

Which half?

[NotAllThere]

Oh come on. Be fair. He's at least half witty.

[d000hg]

Ironic that d000gh, SAS has pretty much described every post you've made on this forum.

Your level of wit makes me look like Shakespeare. Nice of you to drop by, though.

[doodab]

And as a quick quiz, what area of computer science relates directly to philosophy?*

*Gibbon can tell me if my answer's wrong, but I don't think it is.

I would say stuff like the Godels theorems and Turings work on the halting problem, asking and answering questions about what is provable and computable, are as much philosophy as anything else.

[SupremeSpod]

Give it a rest with trying to be deep. It's obvious you don't know what the fook you are talking about, so you're just coming over as a pretentious knob.

HTH.

Nominate for most ironic post of the week.

Ironic that d000gh, SAS has pretty much described every post you've made on this forum.

[kandr]

Give it a rest with trying to be deep. It's obvious you don't know what the fook you are talking about, so you're just coming over as a pretentious knob.

HTH.

Sasguru is right, most of you haven't a clue what Philosophy is and how science developed, people are just parroting out of context passages from a book or some article. It's cringeworthy seeing people way out of their depth, deluded about their level of knowledge.

Cue pathetic attempts at insult to prove my point.

[d000hg]

It's obvious you don't know what the fook you are talking about, so you're just coming over as a pretentious knob.

Nominate for most ironic post of the week.

[EternalOptimist]

Give it a rest with trying to be deep. It's obvious you don't know what the fook you are talking about, so you're just coming over as a pretentious knob.

HTH.

hierarchies and attributes aren't deep, you mong. every developer knows the difference between a primary key and a label

stick to things you know something about , like er...teeth.

[sasguru]

and why are they insisting on a hierarchy when it should be attributes ?

Give it a rest with trying to be deep. It's obvious you don't know what the fook you are talking about, so you're just coming over as a pretentious knob.

HTH.

[EternalOptimist]

and why are they insisting on a hierarchy when it should be attributes ?

[NotAllThere]

As I sit here, looking at the screen, I get a beautiful insight into the way philosophy and computing interact and are related.

Why am I here ?
Is this really what its all about ?
Is there a higher purpose ?
Shall I have my second boiled egg now ?

Why not.
Yes and/or no.
No and/or yes.
Yes, before it gets cold.

[EternalOptimist]

As I sit here, looking at the screen, I get a beautiful insight into the way philosophy and computing interact and are related.

Why am I here ?
Is this really what its all about ?
Is there a higher purpose ?
Shall I have my second boiled egg now ?

[NotAllThere]

You're both probably right but I was thinking of Ontology.

I was thinking of computability.

There are things that science can't currently explain. Quantum Theory for example. QED is great for calculations. But it doesn't actually explain what's going on.

Anything that emerges from chaotic systems, may well be unexplainable. What exactly is so special about 3.7 (Period doubling bifurcations). Emotions, morality may be emergent phenomena.

Of course, you may say that these will eventually be explainable by science. But that's a philosophical perspective. You can only prove something is explainable by providing an explanation. (Echos of the Halting Problem there). And even if you have an explanation, you can get into an infinite regression of "why?".

[ThomasSoerensen]

I thought that physics was an evolutionary branch of philosophy (if I remember Sophie's world correctly).

Historically, there was only philosophy.
All other science branches were seen to be sub-areas of philosophy.

At least this was the picture with the ancient greeks.

[Gibbon]

'Looking happy' could be a human thing sure, but that wasn't my example. Is happiness reserved for us? Who knows. I suspect not, as this is the reward for doing something right, IMO and it seems to make sense for the reward to be present for other species too. Smiling, I guess, expresses this for others to appreciate and may be limited to social species, or us alone.

What is love but a mechanism to bond partners and rear offspring? Is that love exists in other species a contentious issue? Do we find it hard to accept that other animals can feel 'our' emotions too?

Until recently in western society and still in many parts of the world and indeed in many of our ethnic minorities love has got nothing to do with it. If the partners grow to love each other then thats a bonus.