created by IAI_Admin on 24/02/2025 at 09:56 UTC
613 upvotes, 20 top-level comments (showing 20)
Comment by AutoModerator at 24/02/2025 at 09:56 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by UnderTheCurrents at 24/02/2025 at 10:13 UTC
73 upvotes, 5 direct replies
So Whitehead is right?
Comment by Drachefly at 24/02/2025 at 14:44 UTC
44 upvotes, 2 direct replies
So, IF you use the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, then everything is a relation. You can interpret quantum mechanics in this way. It's a valid interpretation. But it's not like quantum mechanics specifically leads you to this interpretation over others.
Comment by monkeyborg at 24/02/2025 at 15:43 UTC
29 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Relations between what?
Comment by mack__7963 at 24/02/2025 at 11:19 UTC
71 upvotes, 3 direct replies
quantum mechanics......everything is nothing until its something.
Comment by Giam_Cordon at 24/02/2025 at 12:21 UTC
44 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Spinoza discovered this hundreds of years ago—cool to see quantum physics proving him correct
Comment by Metanihil at 24/02/2025 at 15:18 UTC
10 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Materialism has nothing to do with a so-called "mythical" substance, "unobservable" and "metaphysical" to the idealists and agnostics.
It has to do with the fundamental divide in philosophy over whether or not objective reality (being) is primary or whether mind or thought is primary. Empricists and agnostics always uphold the "new" science and try to leverage changes in our understanding of the basic components of objective reality to re-insert the idealist primacy of mind, of subjective idealism, in a disguised and contradictory form that needs to utilize science, which is instinctively materialist, in order to doubt materialism. By relying on discover of laws of nature, whatever that may be, is a fatal admission to materialism that thought and mind reflect objective reality and are merely its highest product.
Comment by Praxistor at 24/02/2025 at 10:46 UTC
22 upvotes, 2 direct replies
quick, someone send for the materialism gatekeeper squad. we got quantum woo incoming!
Comment by uberzeit at 25/02/2025 at 02:11 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Physicist- proposed one of his thoughts about how things might be at the fundamental level.
Today Philosophers- it was said by so and so hundreds years ago.
(Still looking for validation and recognition of old philosophers who are still valued nonetheless. What are you guys doing?)
Comment by Substance79 at 25/02/2025 at 16:27 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well duh? Everything defines everything.
Comment by redsparks2025 at 25/02/2025 at 00:15 UTC*
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Meh! Nothing deeply philosophical about this except to basically warn us that our mental habit of trying to "*join the dots*" for the sake of a complete narrative about reality doesn't always agree with the science where "*We know all theories are incomplete; for instance, general relativity doesn’t include quantum mechanics*". Basically after all the scientific discussion about quantum mechanics, etc, we are warned not to jump to any conclusions that science itself has not made.
"*We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.*" ~ Niels Bohr[1].
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
I understand this can be tangential but here is a statement I had to make in r/Buddhism against someone that was confusing nirvana with reality = LINK[2]. And here is a statement I had to make in r/DeepThoughts against someone that wanted claim we had a shared universal consciousness = LINK[3].
We humans jump to all sorts of conclusions for the sake of a complete narrative about reality, or more specifically, our perception of what reality is or should be. This I understand as more a psychological issue to find some "*ultimate plan*" to help us deal with any cognitive dissonance[4] that we may experience from witnessing all the suffering (and/or "*evil*") in the world and our own mortality.
4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxAu7BTZQRY
Thinking deep can cause a mind to be too myopic. Thinking wide can cause a mind to be too unfocused. However one needs to think both deep *and* wide to have a complete understanding which includes knowing the practicable limits to knowledge.
Comment by DyingToBeBorn at 24/02/2025 at 10:07 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So would mereological nihilism take us closer to quantum mechanics?
Comment by Perfectfire9000 at 25/02/2025 at 00:57 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Diamond net of Indira ala flower garland sutra.
Comment by SadGuitarPlayer at 25/02/2025 at 05:24 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Buddhism and Hegel looking like ancient wisdom
Comment by DrTenmaz at 26/02/2025 at 20:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is Ontic Stucutural Realism as laid out in Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized by James Ladyman and Don Ross.
Comment by Carameldelighting at 26/02/2025 at 23:01 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding both ideas, but would this concept of reality only exists in relation explain why waves behave differently when they’re observed?
Comment by [deleted] at 24/02/2025 at 10:05 UTC*
-8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by TalkativeTree at 24/02/2025 at 12:18 UTC
-29 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Physicists basically discovered that the nature of existence is what religion has been describing all along. The study of the external is a much longer path to discover what can be studied internally.
Comment by Alitje at 24/02/2025 at 14:41 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Aristotles with his unmoved mover might be right afterall
Comment by Formless_Mind at 24/02/2025 at 16:51 UTC
-7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Cool but l thought this was a philosophy and not physics subreddit