Recent content by Sauwelios

My point is that so-called "science" (physics and the like) can never know anything, never explain anything, but can only describe. These descriptions can be of use for human beings, in order to do certain things. Let me explain the difference between knowing and describing. Knowing would mean...

Does a perfect circle ever occur in the real world? "Infinite distance" is a self-contradiction. A distance is by definition a definite distance. Describe to me how you think you can ever have an "infinite distance" to an object. Hint: "distance" is a relative concept (there can never be a...

Considering that this is the philosophy board, it is rather strange to assume that every philosopher knows the details of such matters. I have no idea, as I don't speak that language. Please provide a theoretical account, in English, of how infinity occurs in the real world.

No, it does not. Could you give an example of infinity in the "real world"?

Please tell me how one may conceive of the infinite.

There is no difference. To say that infinity is not finiteness is to say that it is {not finiteness}. Indeed, "in-finite" means "not finite". So by definition, infinity is a negative concept. I adhere to Nietzsche's Zarathustra's maxim: "Could ye conceive a God?—But let this mean Will to Truth...

But theoretically, light cannot pass through these, for when it does, there is radation there. I admit this is a sophistry, like the tortoise and the hare. Supposing there are areas which, in themselves, are absolutely empty, I think these are a function of what surrounds them, by which I...

They are relative, not absolute, vacuums: relative to the energy around them.

But I think those vacuums are functions of the energy surrounding them. If there was no energy, there would be no vacuums.

I see now: "A vacuum is a volume of space that is substansively empty of matter" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum "In physics, matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields"...

Premise A: The constant c is the speed of light in a perfect or absolute vacuum. Premise B: A perfect or absolute vacuum is a practical impossibility. Conclusion (C): The speed of light in a vacuum is a purely theoretical concept. Note that I am, or consider myself, a philosopher. If I...

I do not know the principles you are referring to. I am trying to see how far one can come just by rational thinking (without empiricism). As I understand the problem of measurement on a quantum scale, one cannot measure the course of, for instance, a photon without shooting another photon at...

1. At what point does determinism become untenable? (Why) is it incompatible with quantum mechanics? 2. Can we solve the wave-particle duality by postulating particles that move in waves? These are my main questions for now. The object is to see whether determinism can be taken to the...

I think Koko the monkey could be capable of short-term imagination only.

But can he keep them, or at least remember making them? Can he think about the future?