Reborn Relic
Damn American Cowboy
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2015
- Messages
- 555
- MBTI Type
- INTP
You are presuming too much about time, it is not observable unless you make it conceptually suited to observation, which is why Scientism is fundamentally— philosophically flawed. Time is not a fungible ['physical'] property or feature (and the contrary is empirically impossible to falsify,
I mean, how would you define time then? I'd define it as a general sequencing of events, such that I will only feel, say, a need to go to the bathroom only alongside memories or other empirical cues that I've eaten, or the effects of pregnancy only alongside memories or other empirical cues that I've had sex and some other events occurred. Of course, not all things that you experience will have memories associated with them, but to most standards of proof held by empiricists and scientists, there are ways around that--asking someone else to document, or using recordings, and so on. A disproof of time would require a vast number of people to experience something different than the types of phenomena I've described above on a constant basis. But, it is empirically or scientifically falsifiable.
It's not necessarily falsifiable if you don't start off buying into the validity of observations and so on, but I didn't really interpret that as an argument the comic was getting into at the time. If I was misinterpreting, I apologize.
and so Science or Empiricism is fundamentally incapable of resolution [that can amount to anything other than the reading of an indeterminacy that amounts to statistical non-sense: oh wait, the new-atheists actually believe that such 'statistical models' contain something other than a figment of philosophical ineptitude...
Science as a case for Empiricism is incredibly weak, Empiricism itself is incredibly weak unless your willing to retract its domain to quite scant relativistic and contingent measurements. The people who philosophically laid down Science knew better, which is why they spoke of "regularities", and NOT 'laws'. The same is why they spoke of MAGNITUDES, and not 'quantities' (they weren't presumptuous philosophical piss-ants like the new-atheists we see today). Only the deists among them ventured the "law" connotation; for an Atheist to adopt this language is an hypocrisy required to cover over the gaping conceptual lacuna that is the confused state of material-monism as the case for our reality, which manifests as the impossible hope that Science can render a final answer instead of just pretend to be on the search for one..
No game can produce an answer that doesn't uncover more about the Game's own nature than the actual field of its play- Science is not an exception; the universe is not such an outsmarted and dormant THING to be outshone by the superior avatar of worship through the mighty group-thinkers in New-Atheism... Thanks for literally taking us back to the warring Gods of the Sumerian city states. Set or Tiamat will devour you now.
I mean, yes, I do admit that science and the observations of science can't ever really escape the trap of the mechanisms that are needed to make observations, but, as you hint at already, that's true for every method of seeing things..
The question, then, is merely one of what happens when these systems conflict? Would you rather intuitively know that there is water in this section of desert you're in, while feeling thirst and creeping death, or would you rather feel your thirst being quenched, continue experiencing life after that, but be unable to shake this nagging feeling that you didn't drink water at that moment and are dead?
[MENTION=26953]The Mask[/MENTION] , A lot of what I wrote wasn't specifically directed at you, although I do think my writing comprehensively covers the fuller intellectual-sentiment represented by your post, furthermore, I would like to specifically point out that:
^ I believe that statement is essentially tautological, isn't it?
For the most part, but people can try to disprove a system using the system--try to prove it's inconsistent with itself.
Dunning-Kruger is a bitch.
Nah, I know I'm out of my depth.