- #1
sascha
- 127
- 2
Independently of whether Peter Lynds is really right or wrong, I think he has put his finger on a sore spot in the way reality as a whole is most often being approached. This spot shows also in a few points which are obviously not well reflected as yet in the debate on Linds. Many ask for an experimental verification of any theory, even in this case of conceiving time in general (which is not left so general, e.g. in RT with its assumptions, and even less in QT). They seem to forget that the criteria for judging empirical reality can never be found in empirical data themselves, since they are implicit already in the way of choosing / organizing the data.
One may be aware or unaware of such circularities, but in any case they must one day be be revealed and transcended. This cannot be done by an experiment, as many scientists believe. In my opinion (my field is philosophy of science), the real issue is the problem of measurement, which is linked to the problems of what a concept is, what thinking is (and to what extent it is possible and can be cear), and so on. The ultimately relevant aspect for any understanding is always of the conceptual sort (more precisely: of the categoreal sort), not empirical.
All this has not been clarified to the bottom, among others also because the (very influential, and sometimes even a bit pushy) analytical branch of philosophy has narowed down the possible results by a trend to formalize all and sundry, reducing its thinking to a naive belief in science. In this way, the possibility of a really integrative view has considerably been reduced. The result is a maze of detail theories and no way of getting absolutely all of it together again -- getting lost in the bits and pieces.
In case somebody is interested in serious work in this sector, let's get together and do something. In the last years I have developed an approach that might be helpful. There are also some texts and publications, among others on the hitherto controversial concept of mass.
Sascha
sascha@magnet.ch
One may be aware or unaware of such circularities, but in any case they must one day be be revealed and transcended. This cannot be done by an experiment, as many scientists believe. In my opinion (my field is philosophy of science), the real issue is the problem of measurement, which is linked to the problems of what a concept is, what thinking is (and to what extent it is possible and can be cear), and so on. The ultimately relevant aspect for any understanding is always of the conceptual sort (more precisely: of the categoreal sort), not empirical.
All this has not been clarified to the bottom, among others also because the (very influential, and sometimes even a bit pushy) analytical branch of philosophy has narowed down the possible results by a trend to formalize all and sundry, reducing its thinking to a naive belief in science. In this way, the possibility of a really integrative view has considerably been reduced. The result is a maze of detail theories and no way of getting absolutely all of it together again -- getting lost in the bits and pieces.
In case somebody is interested in serious work in this sector, let's get together and do something. In the last years I have developed an approach that might be helpful. There are also some texts and publications, among others on the hitherto controversial concept of mass.
Sascha
sascha@magnet.ch