Enduring Problems in Philosophy

Ren

Ren

Seeker at heart
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
146
This thread is designed to provide a space in which to discuss any thorny philosophical problem. Anyone is free to bring forward a problem which they would like to address and discuss, in a philosophical spirit.

The list of problems in philosophy is endless, but to give a few examples:

- The Mind/Body problem
- Free will
- Evil
- Realism versus Anti-Realism in metaphysics
- The existence of God
- The nature of time
- The scientific status of theories
- The nature of mental states
- Consciousness
- The Self
- The Good
- Linguistic meaning
- The unconscious

Let's discuss anything! If nobody makes a suggestion, I'll make one myself.
 
Chackabuu said:
Is anyone familiar with Chaos theory? Finding patterns within seemingly chaotic systems. It's interesting but I'm not sure it's a problem necessarily
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are philosophical problems emerging from chaos theory. For example, how a system can be both deterministic and unpredictable.

If you are familiar with the theory, it would be great to hear your thoughts.
 
It is kind of inherently problematic I suppose. Most of what I know is from Chaos by James Gleick, who puts the work of Lorenz and Mandelbrot in one place and makes it accessible. Some of it is still above my head though.

upload_2021-4-29_10-31-14.webp
[Lorenzian waterwheel]

This is a graphic of the Lorenzian waterwheel. It was the first system with chaotic behavior that Lorenz discovered. The leftmost image is with a fast flow of energy, setting the wheel in motion. The middle image is when it gets into a steady, stable rotation. The rightmost image shows when the flow gets faster and the spin becomes chaotic. Lorenz was able to see the spin reversing itself with time.

The “butterfly effect” comes from the Lorenz Attractor shown below. It shows structure within chaotic displays of data. The system is never the same so the point of trajectory loops infinitely. According to Gleick the point switching over from one “wing” of the Attractor to another is the same as a reversal with the waterwheel.

A_Trajectory_Through_Phase_Space_in_a_Lorenz_Attractor.gif
[The Lorenz Attractor]

Then there are fractals and the Mandelbrot set. I don’t have the ability to get into the mathematical/geometrical implications behind that. Apparently it’s the most complex thing in mathematics, considering it’s a infinite complexity. Mandelbrot, with the help of computers, was able to take the ideas of Newton, Julia, Fatou, and widen the scope using a system of massive geometrical trial and error. Fractals are never ending patters and the Mandelbrot set is an abstract fractal. The Fibonacci sequence spiral is a fractal as well. Apparently it can be found within the Mandelbrot set and it seems like no one knows why.

tenor.gif
[Mandelbrot Set Zoom]

There is even anatomy of the Mandelbrot set, I only know that the golden ratio can be found in one of the 'bulbs' in the M-set, whatever that even means... xD That’s about all I can say about it. I might try to try render fractal images with the program Kalles Fraktaler at some point for "fun." There are videos on YT of zooming into the Mandelbrot set, that’s probably the best way to see the beauty of chaos. You can see the different places of zoom by comparing the GIFs above and below.

Mandelbrot_color_zoom.gif
[Mandelbrot Set Zoom]

Also snowflakes all have unique but similar and symmetrical designs because they go through chaotic motions in the clouds. (:
 

Attachments

  • sierpinski-zoom41.gif
    sierpinski-zoom41.gif
    81.1 KB · Views: 1
I would say that most of the problems stem from there being a lack of balance where there is far too much left brain thinking where there is very little room for anything else. The all out materialism is really cancer that it destroys so much of what people value in life and have purpose for leaving only nihilism.
 
I made a crude postulate for God some time ago which reflects my understanding of general theological reasoning. Its component are axiomatic and the problems are quite obvious and included in the postulate itself, but I think it's a good starting point.

1. World is everything that is the case.
1.1 We explore the world using logic, as a fundamental interpretative framework, to discover sense.
1.2 All systems of inquiry are subsets of logic formed in a specific configuration.
1.21 These systems cannot evince their truth without tautology, for they are delimitations of logic that constitutes them - mathematics cannot define its function mathematically, science cannot prove itself scientifically (Tarski's undefinability theorem). Logic is the first axiom.
1.22 Because we are bound by logic to understand sense, we are unable to explore logic without falling back on its function.
1.3 To define means to observe logical properties of an object, or the sense in a relation between objects.
1.31 To define is to limit.
1.4 Logic and order are one. But order must have its own cause unless it's eternal. (Looping, recursive universe. Quantum physics indicates that causality in classical sense is not absolute and dialetheias exist, but I'll leave it here for now.)
1.41 Therefore, this cause is an entity which transcends logic.
1.411 Because a cause must be more perfect than its effect, God possesses all logical properties and their sense - He is omniscient.
1.412 Because we are finite beings with abilities limited by the universe, and because God is more perfect than the universe, He is omnipotent.
1.413 Because logic is necessary for definition, and definitions are limitations, we are unable to define God - He is infinite.
 
Chackabuu said:
It is kind of inherently problematic I suppose. Most of what I know is from Chaos by James Gleick, who puts the work of Lorenz and Mandelbrot in one place and makes it accessible. Some of it is still above my head though.

View attachment 78436
[Lorenzian waterwheel]

This is a graphic of the Lorenzian waterwheel. It was the first system with chaotic behavior that Lorenz discovered. The leftmost image is with a fast flow of energy, setting the wheel in motion. The middle image is when it gets into a steady, stable rotation. The rightmost image shows when the flow gets faster and the spin becomes chaotic. Lorenz was able to see the spin reversing itself with time.

The “butterfly effect” comes from the Lorenz Attractor shown below. It shows structure within chaotic displays of data. The system is never the same so the point of trajectory loops infinitely. According to Gleick the point switching over from one “wing” of the Attractor to another is the same as a reversal with the waterwheel.

View attachment 78437
[The Lorenz Attractor]

Then there are fractals and the Mandelbrot set. I don’t have the ability to get into the mathematical/geometrical implications behind that. Apparently it’s the most complex thing in mathematics, considering it’s a infinite complexity. Mandelbrot, with the help of computers, was able to take the ideas of Newton, Julia, Fatou, and widen the scope using a system of massive geometrical trial and error. Fractals are never ending patters and the Mandelbrot set is an abstract fractal. The Fibonacci sequence spiral is a fractal as well. Apparently it can be found within the Mandelbrot set and it seems like no one knows why.

View attachment 78438
[Mandelbrot Set Zoom]

There is even anatomy of the Mandelbrot set, I only know that the golden ratio can be found in one of the 'bulbs' in the M-set, whatever that even means... xD That’s about all I can say about it. I might try to try render fractal images with the program Kalles Fraktaler at some point for "fun." There are videos on YT of zooming into the Mandelbrot set, that’s probably the best way to see the beauty of chaos. You can see the different places of zoom by comparing the GIFs above and below.

View attachment 78439
[Mandelbrot Set Zoom]

Also snowflakes all have unique but similar and symmetrical designs because they go through chaotic motions in the clouds. :)
Click to expand...

Great post, Chackabuu. Those fractal gifs are wonderful and so metaphysically profound.

In terms of philosophical problems this raises: it seems that in the case of snowflakes, chaos generates an intriguing kind of identity. If the designs are symmetrical, then their structure is identical, yet their shape is actually different every time. So in a way, difference is generated through self-identity by way of chaotic motions. I think this is something that philosophers—who are still very interested in the nature of identity—have not explored in detail yet.

It occurs to me that if there is a philosopher who might have used the fractal analogy, it's Gilles Deleuze in his book Difference and Repetition. I'll have to look it up.
 
“A single and same voice for the whole thousand-voiced multiple, a single and same Ocean for all the drops, a single clamour of Being for all beings: on condition that each being, each drop and each voice has reached the state of excess -- in other words, the difference which displaces and disguises them and, in turning upon its mobile cusp, causes them to return.”

Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition
 
Pin said:
I'd always been meaning to ask you what philosophers are preoccupied with now.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what their interests are. Like every other discipline, philosophy has become atomised into a lot of different specialised sub-sets.

Moral philosophy has experienced a significant revival in the last 40 years or so, which might be of particular interest to you.

See e.g. the works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Derek Parfit, Peter Singer and others.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
I made a crude postulate for God some time ago which reflects my understanding of general theological reasoning. Its component are axiomatic and the problems are quite obvious and included in the postulate itself, but I think it's a good starting point.

1. World is everything that is the case.
1.1 We explore the world using logic, as a fundamental interpretative framework, to discover sense.
1.2 All systems of inquiry are subsets of logic formed in a specific configuration.
1.21 These systems cannot evince their truth without tautology, for they are delimitations of logic that constitutes them - mathematics cannot define its function mathematically, science cannot prove itself scientifically (Tarski's undefinability theorem). Logic is the first axiom.
1.22 Because we are bound by logic to understand sense, we are unable to explore logic without falling back on its function.
1.3 To define means to observe logical properties of an object, or the sense in a relation between objects.
1.31 To define is to limit.
1.4 Logic and order are one. But order must have its own cause unless it's eternal. (Looping, recursive universe. Quantum physics indicates that causality in classical sense is not absolute and dialetheias exist, but I'll leave it here for now.)
1.41 Therefore, this cause is an entity which transcends logic.
1.411 Because a cause must be more perfect than its effect, God possesses all logical properties and their sense - He is omniscient.
1.412 Because we are finite beings with abilities limited by the universe, and because God is more perfect than the universe, He is omnipotent.
1.413 Because logic is necessary for definition, and definitions are limitations, we are unable to define God - He is infinite.
Click to expand...

Very cool.

Would you be interested in a critique/discussion of your postulate?
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
1. World is everything that is the case.
1.1 We explore the world using logic, as a fundamental interpretative framework, to discover sense.
1.2 All systems of inquiry are subsets of logic formed in a specific configuration.
1.21 These systems cannot evince their truth without tautology, for they are delimitations of logic that constitutes them - mathematics cannot define its function mathematically, science cannot prove itself scientifically (Tarski's undefinability theorem). Logic is the first axiom.
1.22 Because we are bound by logic to understand sense, we are unable to explore logic without falling back on its function.
1.3 To define means to observe logical properties of an object, or the sense in a relation between objects.
1.31 To define is to limit.
1.4 Logic and order are one. But order must have its own cause unless it's eternal. (Looping, recursive universe. Quantum physics indicates that causality in classical sense is not absolute and dialetheias exist, but I'll leave it here for now.)
1.41 Therefore, this cause is an entity which transcends logic.
1.411 Because a cause must be more perfect than its effect, God possesses all logical properties and their sense - He is omniscient.
1.412 Because we are finite beings with abilities limited by the universe, and because God is more perfect than the universe, He is omnipotent.
1.413 Because logic is necessary for definition, and definitions are limitations, we are unable to define God - He is infinite.
Click to expand...

What I like about this proof is how it blends Aristotle and Wittgenstein to arrive at the existence of God through other means than the traditional ontological argument.

1. to 1.31 are fine. At this point the two important elements are: logic is the first axiom (1.21); and to define is to limit (1.31).

After that, I see a possible problem with how you bring God into the sequence. You say that logic and order are one, and that order must have its own cause unless it's eternal (1.4). This is where the Aristotle-Wittgenstein blended approach begins to feel a bit shaky to me. I think you'd need a few more lines in the proof to show that order and logic are really one; it's not something that you can simply posit as self-evident. To illustrate: the opposite of order is disorder, or chaos. But it is not obvious to me that disorder/chaos is illogical. In fact, if logic is the first axiom, the opposite of logic cannot even be conceived. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus: "It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an illogical world would look like."

This is an important point, because it suggests that logic is transcendental (cf. Wittgenstein again) rather than immanent within the world, like order. But only if it is immanent within the world does it make sense to say that it must have a cause, like the existence of the world must have a cause unless it's eternal. If logic is transcendental, then it does not need to have a cause, and it does seem somewhat artificial to call logic 'the effect' of a prior cause, which, as an effect, is less perfect than that cause. I can conceive of the universe being imperfect, in the sense that it lacks things that it could have had (immortality, etc.) But what does logic lack that it could have had, had it been perfect?

Anyway, these are merely some preliminary observations. Happy to discuss further.
 
Ren said:
What I like about this proof is how it blends Aristotle and Wittgenstein to arrive at the existence of God through other means than the traditional ontological argument.

1. to 1.31 are fine. At this point the two important elements are: logic is the first axiom (1.21); and to define is to limit (1.31).

After that, I see a possible problem with how you bring God into the sequence. You say that logic and order are one, and that order must have its own cause unless it's eternal (1.4). This is where the Aristotle-Wittgenstein blended approach begins to feel a bit shaky to me. I think you'd need a few more lines in the proof to show that order and logic are really one; it's not something that you can simply posit as self-evident. To illustrate: the opposite of order is disorder, or chaos. But it is not obvious to me that disorder/chaos is illogical. In fact, if logic is the first axiom, the opposite of logic cannot even be conceived. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus: "It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an illogical world would look like."

This is an important point, because it suggests that logic is transcendental (cf. Wittgenstein again) rather than immanent within the world, like order. But only if it is immanent within the world does it make sense to say that it must have a cause, like the existence of the world must have a cause unless it's eternal. If logic is transcendental, then it does not need to have a cause, and it does seem somewhat artificial to call logic 'the effect' of a prior cause, which, as an effect, is less perfect than that cause. I can conceive of the universe being imperfect, in the sense that it lacks things that it could have had (immortality, etc.) But what does logic lack that it could have had, had it been perfect?

Anyway, these are merely some preliminary observations. Happy to discuss further.
Click to expand...

You're right about the clear Wittgenstein influence, but this actually came to me after reading Meditations on First Philosophy. I've only read a bit of Nicomachean Ethics from Aristotle so any resemblance is coincidental. I think Descartes is wrongly labeled as a dualist and I see Tractatus as an extension of Meditations.

I agree that the reasoning should be outlined. When we talk about randomness or chaos, we really mean unpredictability, not an absence of internal sense within chaotic phenomena. I don't know what chaos means in stochastic terms, and I don't know how anyone could. Hence, disorder isn't illogical but rather indicative of opacity or unknowability. In fact, nothing indeed can be illogical - literally, inasmuch as we can think distinctly about nothing. So the opposite of logic isn't disorder but nonexistence, because nothing can exist without taking its place in relation to other extant objects in the logical space. We couldn't say what an illogical world would look like because any instance of illogicality is impossible even in our imagination - no matter how garish the thing you come up with, it will still be comprised of individual parts that are reified in reality.

I see now that referring to logic as an axiom is wrong, as it implies the possibility of substitution. In my proposition, logic is immanent and is itself a mark of a complete world, but God is transcendent. Here is where it gets difficult to continue without the trademark argument or special pleading. We shouldn't be able to consider God as one - or perhaps at all - unless we are only considering a part while the rest is locked away from us, therefore giving the illusion of a whole. This makes me partial to a panentheistic stance rather than the classical monotheistic one.
 
Ren said:
- The Mind/Body problem
- Free will
- Evil
- Realism versus Anti-Realism in metaphysics
- The existence of God
- The nature of time
- The scientific status of theories
- The nature of mental states
- Consciousness
- The Self
- The Good
- Linguistic meaning
- The unconscious
Click to expand...

I love that it’s practically in a step/ list format. Messaging you my thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
@Ren

So I was thinking about the mind-body debate and in this sense I am a monist. I think that the mind and body are both the same physical process. Cartesian dualism makes no sense to me. However, I don't subscribe to phenomenalism (subjective idealism). I don't think that things that happen physically are reducible only to mental processes.

Am I not being clear enough? Am I a materialist or a physicalist?
 
yay it's a thread by @Ren

I'd love weighing in more, but unfortunately am not well-educated about philosophy. If anybody could recommend something to help me brush up, I'd appreciate you <3 it won't happen right away, but somewhere on my list of skills & knowledge to accumulate.
 
Pin said:
@Ren

So I was thinking about the mind-body debate and in this sense I am a monist. I think that the mind and body are both the same physical process. Cartesian dualism makes no sense to me. However, I don't subscribe to phenomenalism (subjective idealism). I don't think that things that happen physically are reducible only to mental processes.

Am I not being clear enough? Am I a materialist or a physicalist?
Click to expand...

Physicalist. My sense is that materialism is a somewhat outdated and vaguer term, because 'matter' underdetermines the realm of the physical.

But do you think that things that happen mentally are reducible to physical processes? Here's a simple argument to offer an objection. Let's say you miss someone: this is an emotion, which we would describe as a mental state. Now, if you say that the mental state is reducible to a physical process, you are saying effectively that your state of missing that person is identical to neuron firings in your brain.

But it is not identical, because in the emotion you are missing someone. The mental state is directed outward, and toward a specific object (the person you miss). Philosophers call this the intentionality of mental states: they have an intrinsic 'aboutness', something which they are directed to. (Notice it is the same with consciousness: we are not just conscious, but conscious of...). On the other hand, it makes no sense that a series of neuron firings in the brain is 'about' anything. Physical processes are devoid of intentionality. Therefore they cannot be the same.

How would you respond to this objection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top