Talk:Reality: Difference between revisions
imported>Maria Cuervo |
imported>Larry Sanger (→Physicists about philosophy?: new section) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::: I think that a whole page could go Einstein's string theory version of reality v. the holographic version and link back here. This page could become a huge project. | ::: I think that a whole page could go Einstein's string theory version of reality v. the holographic version and link back here. This page could become a huge project. | ||
== Physicists about philosophy? == | |||
Maybe somebody could explain to me why a couple of physicists have especially noteworthy views on this topic? Basically, they're trying to do philosophy. There are far more important thinkers who talk about the concept of reality. | |||
I'm not trying to start a fight, or disrespect Stephen Hawkings or the person who added this section of course, I'm just rather tired of non-philosophers (Dawkins is another example) being thought of as making important contributions to philosophy, when they're basically just authors who are using their popularity as a platform from which to make advance theories, probably without reference to serious philosophers, who do this sort of thing for a living... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:41, 17 July 2011
Early comments
Page created--Maria Cuervo 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Good start. Two things I think it needs are Johnson's "I refute it thus" [1] and the 60s T-shirt "Reality is for people who cannot handle drugs". Sandy Harris 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or "... science fiction" in another version. Peter Jackson 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Sandy. I'll slowly work my way to Johnson but if you want to create an applicable section, go for it. Thank you for the suggestions. Is there an image for the T-shirt? I imagine that would be a great relief from the seriousness of Plato, to wear it or even to just see the image.--Maria Cuervo 01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hayford: I didn't even see that apostrophe in the definition of Reality!
- Also Schroedinger's cat and at least two butterflies — Chuang Tzu's and the one in Chaos theory. Sandy Harris 04:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nice. BTW, I worked for a decade in IT before switching to Philosophy, so I did enjoy reading your profile. I'm a bit of a polyglot and taught myself a few languages. Doing Oracle, perl, php, cold fusion, asp, pl/sql, regX, whatever and anything. Whatever was needed. I've written my own little content management system which by now is pretty old and useless. (So I retired my personal sites that used the program, for now.) I did consider having myself added to the technology workgroup? but wondered if it was too much. At least I could on occasion write articles on Baudrillard or other philosophy-related technology issues that could cross link. Who knows.--Maria Cuervo 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Holographic Universe
I'm interested in this (Is it Talbot that wrote on it?) and see certain affinities between it and Plato's cosmology.
Definition for Reality
What I tried to attempt in the definition was one which could be concise and clear yet accommodate vastly different meanings. The definition used works in Platonic Realism but depending on how the terms within it are defined, e.g., being, also with phenomenology.--Maria Cuervo 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Saw a quote today, attributed to Einstein "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." I do not know if that is genuine, but if it is, it belongs in the article. Sandy Harris 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a whole page could go Einstein's string theory version of reality v. the holographic version and link back here. This page could become a huge project.
Physicists about philosophy?
Maybe somebody could explain to me why a couple of physicists have especially noteworthy views on this topic? Basically, they're trying to do philosophy. There are far more important thinkers who talk about the concept of reality.
I'm not trying to start a fight, or disrespect Stephen Hawkings or the person who added this section of course, I'm just rather tired of non-philosophers (Dawkins is another example) being thought of as making important contributions to philosophy, when they're basically just authors who are using their popularity as a platform from which to make advance theories, probably without reference to serious philosophers, who do this sort of thing for a living... --Larry Sanger 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Philosophy Category Check
- Classics Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Philosophy Developing Articles
- Philosophy Nonstub Articles
- Philosophy Internal Articles
- Classics Developing Articles
- Classics Nonstub Articles
- Classics Internal Articles
- Philosophy Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Classics Underlinked Articles