Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Science-iffication of philosophy. Solving questions such as what is fair?

  1. Jul 27, 2004 #1
    Science-iffication of philosophy. Solving questions such as "what is fair?"

    The topic probably makes you think I'm crazy, and perhaps I am mistaken. The issue in all philosophy is semantic in nature and english distorts our ability to think. I have a method to solve these issues:


    Please only add to this thread if you have examined the aforementioned website.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2004 #2
    11 chapters. Not 11 chapters ? Really ? No.

    You got 11 chapters or reading there in that site. I'm not reading 11 chapters of somebodies stuff. Even Einstein.

    Sum it up please. Here in a post in this thread. That's common practice 'round here.
  4. Jul 28, 2004 #3

    In short, all words only have the meanings that their definitions have.
    All definitions must be tranlatable into statements about the basic universe constituents (since these are all that exist).
    All biases towards a word only make sense if they are due to practical advantages of the definition.

    So all words such as "fair", "right", and "should" only have the meaning which is inherent in their particle definitions.

    We also draw many other practical conclusions (such as on pride) which I feel are very tough to summarize and as I view my summary so far it looks too compact.

    Well I hope I have interested you enough to read it. Frankly I don't know if I've explained it thoroughly enough as is (in the 20 pages or so that i've written).
  5. Jul 28, 2004 #4
    I find that words mean more when someone who takes care of Law says it. Like a fireman, politician, swat, etc...

    So, since the world from China to Hawaii has law. We must share language that translates well enough for these agencies to communicate, and also understand each other.

    So since this is true. Your arguement falls short. About how the basics of language derived from latin roots as opposed to one from indian or asian roots, etc... makes real communication impossible.

    Since law is a universal language like math. The roots of the words must be equivilent to math, which comes from a postulate that may be a given, and is then made into a full proof. Like the order of operations. From this law is made, and judged.

    This is my reasoning. See that bunch of english words above. I think it's called a "Paragraph". Yeah. Read that, and see if your idea proves that wrong.

    :rolleyes: :yuck: :zzz: :uhh: :shy: :biggrin:
  6. Jul 28, 2004 #5
    You misunderstand.

    I am not saying that no words are translatable between languages. I'm saying that almost every word is, but not certain erroneous words. These erroneous words (such as 'deserves') cannot be translated into terms about the basic constituents of the universe.

    If you claim that I propose origin (IE: roots) of words have anything to do with this then there was a miscommunication.

    Math is totally translatable (I believe this is part of turing completeness).

    Anyways my point on untranslatability isn't to point out that there is a discrepency between languages but that there is a discrepency between most every spoken language and sense (programming languages avoid these problems).

    If something can't be stated in terms of universe constituents then it is not interpretable (ie: nonsense).
  7. Jul 28, 2004 #6
    But law relies on proven theories such as the order of operations. And since law enforcement is based on law, and so math. The world already speakes the same language anyway. One language,law, based in proven theories such as the order of operations.

    Math is not only translatable to law, but other stuff like philosophy. Philosophy about death for example. I use that idea in one of these philosophy forums in a thread about death.

    So if law, and philosophy is based in math, and math unifies the world language under law and order. I don't agree that the world cannot comprehend the overall picture of a given language just because of a few quirky words.
  8. Jul 28, 2004 #7
    Have you even read the site?
  9. Jul 28, 2004 #8
    As I said earlier. I depend on a summary that you type in a post. I will not read 20 pages of somebodies stuff. I'm dyslexic, and to read that would take quite a long time.

    If your not happy with your posts I'm sorry. That's general practice on all message boards to post you idea or jibber jabber and not expect somebody to read a small book to answer or post back.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Science-iffication of philosophy. Solving questions such as what is fair?
  1. Philosophy of Science (Replies: 9)

  2. Science fair. (Replies: 1)

  3. Philosophy And Science (Replies: 6)