Talk:Hempel's dilemma

This article captures the Carl Hempel I knew in 1975. He used to say that the two philosophical questions are "What do you mean?" and "How do you know?", and he was relentlessly skeptical, especially skeptical of his own tradition which was what is popularly known as logical positivism. He was a leader in rephrasing the original, startling claims of logical positivism in much more limited terms. He came to do so, not because he was uncomfortable being perceived as an extremist, but because he believed that logic and critical thinking were the only possible anchor of sound thought. He realized that the absolutist claims of logical positivism could not be sustained, but he defended the legacy of what he would have preferred to call "critical empiricism" against the arguments of interlocutors like Thomas Kuhn, whom he held in high esteem. I don't know if this is an appropriate post here so I'll let all you wiki's decide whether or not to let it live. I like the wiki idea.

Physics vs. Role Play

Physics can explain the structure of ingredients, but not economics (the role play of the ingredients). Elements in biological systems can be analogized with economic entities:

“

• The political and media enviroment ~ Nervous system
• Money ~ Tokens for the right to burn fat, gas, oil, and cholestrol and access to the nervous system
• Banks ~ Stores and lends tokens for the right to burn fat, gas, oil, and cholesterol and access to the nervous system
• Federal Reserve ~ Lungs
• Federal Reserve's tools of monetary policy ~ Aveoli (where oxygen/money is introduced)
• Soil ~ Food
• Farms ~ Stomach
• Farm to market roads ~ Small intestine
• Immigration/Import control ~ villi (in the small intestine)
• Emmigration/Export control ~ excetory systems (including sweat glands)
• Garbage Collection & Graveyard ~ Large intestine
• Traffic Control ~ Vitamins, Minerals, and Proteins
• Transportation ~ Blood plasma
• Oil pump ~ Heart
• Electric Generators ~ The chemical reactions which burn fat, gas, oil, and cholesterol
• Phone lines ~ Axons
• Phone line posts ~ Nerve Cell Bodies
• Money transfer medium ~ Red blood cells
• Supply Chain ~ Circulatory system
• Blueprint & Master plan ~ DNA
• Light border security ~ Skin (very thin)
• "Normal" border security ~ Clothes
• Port ~ Face
• Telecommunications ~ Ears & Eyes
• Knowledge holders & Detectives ~ Antibodies
• Macroscale decision makers ~ Frontal lobe
• Military "intelligence" operations & Pop culture media ~ Amygdala
• Police ~ White Blood Cells
• Spawns of Criminals ~ Bad Viruses and Bad Bacteria
• Riots & Civil War ~ Cancer

”

To explain everything, not only do you need Physics, but also understanding the installation of economizing breeds (esp. on what it requires). However, to explain the very large and very small, all you need is Physics.Kmarinas86 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

causal permeability = causopermeability (αιτιοδιαπερατότητα in Greek)

Some people are atheists, believe that everything is physical, but claim (they are not the majority of atheists) that biological experiencing (sentience and all functions necessary for personhood) is different from the natural laws.

But according to causopermeability (the claim that causes amongst different natural mechanisms leak out; and in many causes provide the ontology/the existential foundations of other open systems - According to causopermeability, no closed system can possibly exist [randomization is actually pseudorandomization, black holes are still part of our universe otherwise they would be replaced by a huge number of alternative microstates which would cause white hole explosions but we don't observe that in nature, and truly isolated experiments would also become exploding white holes by unlinking them from our universe and introducing spatiotemporal white noise... but we don't observe that. Sabine Hossenfelder dealt with some Bell subtleties... See her work [and YouTube video] on superdeterminism, but she doesn't close it in a honest way, because "ideo-apparent superdeterminism" (ideo- because it's hard to be made apparent) could be presented as options within the many-worlds interpretation [Everettism; and for each sub-reality, it's inaccessible foundations seem superdeterministic, but actually they are Everettian because they have a deeper causality ad infinitum; Hugh Everett III and manyworldness/Everettism, provide mathematical explanations for the depths of causality; while superdeterminism is unprocedural/uncausal/magical... but usually in some distant past... which we might push it more back if we acquire more data [it is not a complete theory; it is a theory with non-theoretical/hollow foundations).

______

According to causopermeability what you think 1. only exists because of your ontological physicality, 2. ontological physicality not only has an impact on our thoughts, but it is our thoughts (Humans separate scientophysics from scientoneuroscience, but ontophysics and ontoencephalology are actually one and the same; ontoencephalology is ontophysics acting on our brains [bodies, environment... here a new question opens: "Is my self only my body [hormones afar from the brain affect the brain] or is part of my OWN SELFHOOD a university encyclopedia I read every day... Is part of my OWN SELFHOOD the environment [all the environment? the things I like? If you open that way of thinking anything interacting with you is part of you at different rates/gratient view/gradience theory]).

1. science of physics = scientophysics/physics [natural laws scientifically described] vs 2. ontological "true" physics of reality/natural laws as they are = ontophysics

We should necessarily differentiate between scientophysics and ontophysics.

Is the "ideal scientophysics" tautological to ontophysics?
Singlewordedness imparts strength to both word and the evolution of ideas; if you don't have a single word for something, statistically it becomes weaker; see: 1. "God" vs 2. "supposedly self-evident precosmic cosmogonic brainless thinker ex nihilo"; which one is a stronger God? The monolectic/monolexic/single-worded one.)
Carl Hempel by not having a single word for ontophysics he didn't expose that HUGE and by no means self-evident conundrum:

Is the "ideal scientophysics" tautological to ontophysics?

(Not necessarily according to some ontoaxiomatic [the axiomatic system of some substantiality like our universe; there is no generic axiomatic system of all axiomatic system; and most probably the natural world is not based on an axiomatic list, but on an axiomatic algorithm in order it manages the axiomaticity problems of incompleteness and/or inconsistency... in our universe with entropy and spatiotemporal expansion [even that is entropic] and with Heisenberg uncertainty principle [which plays a major ontological role; it's not a mere phenomenological trick, but a way the universe manages its ontoaxiomatics... but the overall universe "sees" all the alternatives [a bigger question is: Is there a specific hypernymic whole universe, or its bigger renormalization groups become hazy an common between many other mathematically kin universes... and that Russian doll hypernymic game does never stop, but each larger grouping probabilistically contributes lesser and lesser to the central wave function; a Hubble volume of a particular observer [this is an ontological perspectivism view, because it is about how reality itself holds together as one... or one which fades out into bigger groupings which probabilistically and causally contribute lesser and lesser the higher the hypernymy of the renormalization group is]).

Many theorists claim that even a near-ideal (see: Stephen Hawking about perfection; which isn't actual/physical/naturally possible) scientophysics, by no means would be tautological or even close to the overall hazy causal connectome of ontophysics. Humanity will gradually understand many parts of our local ontophysics via scientophysics, but by no means the overall ontophysics; and that is NOT trivial (even though higher order renormalization groupings probabilistically contribute less, they are ABSOLUTELY necessary to justify our local universe). Humanity doesn't have infinite amount of space and time to write down an infinite ontology which perpetually multifurcates. Science is not useless, but we will harm science if we promote false claims.

ontological mapping; distorted mapping (as in mathematics); entropic mapping (non-conformal with missing and/or additional parts), etc.

According to the philosophy of "mappings", the brain creates a mapping of the world but: 1. not necessarily correct and 2. it isn't self-aware about its own exact connectome (if you have a brain you aren't necessarily a neuroscientist).

That doesn't mean that false, imperfect, etc. ontological–neural mappings are the result of the supernatural (being unprocedural, magical, divine, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:889E:3000:BCA9:FE23:B968:CFFD (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental definition lacking

I have no idea what this sentence means: "... worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories."

The entire subject of science consists in studying puzzles, which is say things for which worked-out explanations are beyond the scope of current understandings. Now perhaps "scope of such theories" means something different from "current understandings." But if so, what is the possible procedure for showing that a given topic is fundamentally outside what existing theories can ever accommodate? The author is apparently claiming to know something that (as far as I know) he has no basis for. And worse, they take it as axiomatic when it clearly needs proof.

This discussion reminds me of the "God in the gaps" argument for "scientific creationism." Just because we don't have (and likely never will have) all the evolutionary steps towards emergence of people, it does not follow that "God did it." Similarly, just because we cannot reduce all human behavior to existing physics, it does not follow that it can't be done.

Burressd (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 31 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aley.v17, Lvrpl (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aley.v17 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)