I'll match the energy you put into talking about Wittgenstein with me. — frank
It doesn't matter that "water" could be used to mean a mixture of chlorimine and water that might come from your tap. One is expected to discern the use here. — frank
This is like trying to teach table manners to a kangaroo. — Banno
When the chemist uses the term H20 she does not mean water. She means only that substance that contains two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen. — Fooloso4
Pretty much. You have exactly the same mechanics here as you do with materialism. The only difference is that you posit those things to be composed of ideas.How on Earth would this work under idealism? The ideas of hydrogen and oxygen somehow combine to form a new idea (water) that is still composed of two distinct ideas (hydrogen and oxygen)? And this works only if they can share other ideas (electrons) that orbit around it? — RogueAI
I don't think this works in practice. We don't have idealists trying to fly by wishing they can fly. They still live in the same world self proclaimed materialists do, and still buy the same airplane tickets.As an idealist, I would say water is just part of the dream, and it will do whatever the dreamer wants it to do. ... We've all had dreams of snow and rain and clouds. Why not dreams where water appears to be a collection of tiny particles? In idealism, there really isn't "water" just like there's no "water" in our dreams. — RogueAI
Pretty much. You have exactly the same mechanics here as you do with materialism. The only difference is that you posit those things to be composed of ideas.
An idealist in a chemistry class will still note twice as much gas being collected at the negative probe as they would at the positive probe. Such consistent behaviors of the idea-of-water and the idea-of-DC-circuits, which seems independent of the wishes of the person performing the experiment, deserves names to call them for pragmatic reasons. "Hydrogen" is a perfectly good name for the gas that comes out at the negative end; that's what other English speakers call it. "Oxygen" is a fine name to call what comes out at the positive end. You could even go so far as to get a PhD in chemistry; even win Nobel prizes for it, and still be an idealist... all you're committing to is that somehow these descriptions are describing ideas.
No, that's not what I mean.The materialist, of course, will not accept that as an answer. That's the mechanics of the issue (which I take you to mean "how things really are"). — RogueAI
Of course it doesn't! But if the fact that this is a dream doesn't commit you to think you'll be able to fly by wishing it, why do you think the fact that this is a dream commits you to think mixing baking soda with vinegar won't form bubbles, or that the resulting thing cannot be poured over a candle and put it out? I am reading you as saying that thinking this is a dream absolutely commits you to deny chemistry (aka that H2O is a thing).The fact that this is a dream doesn't entail that I think I'll be able to fly. — RogueAI
Okay, but if the mind wants me, an idealist, to see chemical mechanics, why should I deny chemical mechanics? If the mind wants me to see that the bubbles from baking soda/vinegar puts out candles, why would I deny that doing so can put out candles? If it wants me to see twice as much gas as the negative end as the positive end, why should I deny that?An idealist in chemistry, when asked "why are you observing what you're observing", will ultimately claim, "I observe whatever the mind(s) creating this reality want me to see." The materialist chemistry teacher will not agree with that. — RogueAI
Any description of the physical world by any person is simply a model. This includes the description "water is H2O".I have no problem with water appears to be H2O. I have a problem with water is (=) H2O. — RogueAI
I have a deeper problem that starts when I unpack "combination of things".When you unpack "water is H2O" you immediately run into a problem: "water is H2O" means, among other things, that water is a combination of things. I don't agree that water is a combination of things. — RogueAI
If you agree that we can make hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis while simultaneously reducing the total amount of water in direct accordance with the model of chemistry, then in what sense does your claim that it's not a combination of things mean something?
To me, the word "water" is a label that I attach to a particular kind of thing in my environment. The stuff that comes out of my taps when I open them that I can hold with a cup... that comes clear and has a particular familiar taste, qualifies as water. The part of the question where I presume this is a simulation bears no relevance to the answer.If this is a simulation, what would you define water as? A combination of things or computer code? — RogueAI
Under the MWI, it's not really made of particles either. Under MWI, it's not so much that it's an idea as it is that it's a portion of the universal wavefunction oriented in such a way as to interact with certain other portions of the wavefunction consistent to simulate something like classical physics. So in a roundabout way, MWI is kind of a simulation hypothesis itself.It means reality is such that water is not made of particles, but is an idea. — RogueAI
For meaning, look to use. — frank
So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right?
— frank
From my second post:
H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20.
— Fooloso4
"Bits" assumes classical computers, simulating classical universes. Try instead to imagine a quantum computer simulating classical universes. As mentioned, it's not a huge stretch to say that MWI is at least a natural version of this very thing... and MWI is at least a mainstream interpretation. This is probably close enough to consider viable and close enough to the simulation hypothesis to at least be relevant.All references to the external world in a simulation are just labels for bits of computer code. If simulations are even metaphysically possible, which I doubt. — RogueAI
So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank
So you believe H20 is necessarily water?
— frank
If he doesn't, I'll defend that view from the point of view of Kripke. Water = H₂O. "H₂O" is a rigid designator. Water is a rigid designator.. Hence. necessarily, Water = H₂O.
Two Dimensional Semantics may provide an alternative, and I would welcome such a discussion. — Banno
Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral? — frank
This is the line of thought Kripke addresses. — frank
Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral?
This is the line of thought Kripke addresses.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.