"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

[littlebabyjesus]

LBJ, explain to me Quantum Theory in 5 words.

spooky action at a distance

There's a start for you. It doesn't explain it, but it at least gives a hint at the strange world you're about to enter.

ETA:

truxta's got in there. These two are rather good:

Everything not forbidden is mandatory
(a variant on this would be: Everything that can happen happens)

and, along similar lines:

All possibilities contribute to amplitude


I can give you various interpretations in five words too, if you like. Here's Everett's:

The wave function never collapses (I actually had to cheat here - strictly speaking it should only be four words)


ETA:

On reflection, I'm going to go with my second one:

Everything that can happen happens

 

[TruXta]

Oh, I can see some others have a "proxy"...

What are you on about?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

See, generally speaking, physicists are not up their own arses.

 

[mojo pixy]

Whereas with philosophy that's the #1 hazard.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm perfectly serious about Hegel's dialectic btw. Its two fans on this thread appear to be gorski and phildwyer. If I were naughty, I would say 'QED'. But I'm not, so I won't.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

One of the most poisonous things of all about the gorski/dwyer position is the idea that the professional philosopher has some kind of special insight the rest of us are missing. It's bollocks.

This.

 

[maomao]

Ha! Humility is my point to him, you moron!

Outside of your little academic bubble you really don't understand the English language very well do you.

 

[gorski]

Yes, Mojo, you are. Good of you to admit it. Go read Hegel or summat and calm down...

 

[gorski]

Outside of your little academic bubble you really don't understand the English language very well do you.

Luckily, you do, enough for both of us...

Which part of "you don't get it" do you not understand?

 

[mojo pixy]

Go read Hegel or summat and calm down...

Go outside and use your soul.

 

[gorski]

Oh, you should, yes...

 

[mojo pixy]

I don't have one, but you seem to think you do, so go on.

 

[phildwyer]

Phil see this? You still think attacks like this are from "all right" guys?

MaoMao's alright, he actually stood up for me a few times on here. And in any case, this is just an insanely magnified dispute, a social media phenomenon. I bet almost everyone on here is alright in real life, at least such has been my fairly extensive experience, but obviously the nature of the internet is to make everyone appear to be an obnoxious sociopath.

 

[phildwyer]

As for Marx and materialism, I've alway thought this was decisive:

Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General, Marx, 1844

If you think that's "decisive" I fear you know but little of Marx

That's an early work, composed during a period of intense polemic debate with the idealist Young Hegelians, in which Marx is emphasizing his youthful materialism for rhetorical purposes.

 

[Knotted]

Explain quantum mechanics in five words

Unitary evolution, projective measurement pretty much gets it.

 

[Knotted]

If you think that's "decisive" I fear you know but little of Marx

That's an early work, composed during a period of intense polemic debate with the idealist Young Hegelians, in which Marx is emphasizing his youthful materialism for rhetorical purposes.

Check the preface to a critique of political economy then. I can't link to it as I'm at work. Almost exactly the same language.

 

[gorski]

Fail. Next.

 

[Knotted]

I'm perfectly serious about Hegel's dialectic btw. Its two fans on this thread appear to be gorski and phildwyer. If I were naughty, I would say 'QED'. But I'm not, so I won't.

I don't know what you make of Engels links I put earlier (I'm not a big fan), but he does give plenty of real examples. I think Phil & gorski owe more to Engels (plus mysticism) than they do to Hegel anyway. Diamat plus magic.

 

[Knotted]

I was talking to Phil, not you gorski.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I have avoided answering directly because I do not want to spoil Phil's game, as it were.

I don't think your disagreement would spoil Phil's game. Phil has been on about this for many years, through many excited arguments.



Earlier in the thread, you've brought up the fact that altering one's response based on who the speaker is, as opposed to what the speaker is saying, is contrary to the spirit of intellectual debate. You point it out when posters appear to be giving you a hard time for doing things that other posters have done; yet they have been given a pass.

But now you're avoiding answering a straightforward question, because of how you feel about Phil. You're altering what you say, based on the poster involved, as opposed to simply responding about the idea - in the true spirit of intellectual discourse.

I have to say, I'm surprised and disappointed.

 

[Knotted]

From the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy:

The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term “civil society”; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy.

(My emphasis)
Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

It's clear from the bit in bold that Marx rejected philosophical idealism in the mid-1840's and that he had not changed his conclusions on that matter (maybe he did on other matters but not this one). No soul, spirit or geist for Marx but rather the relation between "man and man" (in the 1844 manuscripts) or "the material conditions of life" of which the anatomy "has to be sought in political economy" (in the 1859 Preface). I know Phil has an occult reading of Marx which is all very entertaining, but I see no reason to join him in reading Marx this way.

 

[gorski]

No, Johnny, you misunderstood. There is no disagreement in this respect between Phil and me, just you misunderstanding Phil's position, it seems to me, perhaps following the usual, literal, everyday, common meaning of these words (God/Spirit etc.). However, thinkers like Hegel had to invent their own language etc. Their notions must be understood on their own terms or one won't understand them at all, I'm afraid.

 

[maomao]

MaoMao's alright, he actually stood up for me a few times on here. And in any case, this is just an insanely magnified dispute, a social media phenomenon. I bet almost everyone on here is alright in real life, at least such has been my fairly extensive experience, but obviously the nature of the internet is to make everyone appear to be an obnoxious sociopath.

Your mate's a prick Phil. The angry professor schtick where he bowls up on threads and tells everyone they're wrong and they're all too stupid to understand why is funny for about 15 minutes but there's a real nasty undercurrent to all his shit. From completely wasting the time of people who actually try to converse with him to the weird sexist and disablist abuse and the completely offensive low IQ = animals bullshit. Your URL mate may be an affable well-read teaching assistant at some ex-poly but his internet avatar is a prick and quite rightly a target of abuse.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No...

Do you believe that human beings possess an immortal soul?

Do you believe that the possession of an immortal soul is the basis of human exceptionalism?

If you believe in an immortal soul - what do you believe it to be; what are its attributes?


Nothing turns on it; but if you give another evasive answer, I won't be able to help but conclude that the others are right, that you are just trolling here, and not interested in a straightforward discussion. If that's the case, you can congratulate yourself on having been able to fool me into accepting you as being honest, up to this point.

 

[gorski]

Now you are in danger of doing the same old rubbish they are doing. Don't let yourself go like that...

I answered, if you are willing to hear it, in pretty darn precise terms. Do not be literal.

You have to get into Hegel's type of thinking, terminology, frame of mind...

I am not going to do more, as I explained, for the time being.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thanks. I have my answer.

Have fun with the thread, dude.

I'm outta here.

 

[Orang Utan]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

View attachment 100493

 

[gorski]

Yeah, me, too, Johnny...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Now you are in danger of doing the same old rubbish they are doing. Don't let yourself go like that...

I answered, if you are willing to hear it, in pretty darn precise terms. Do not be literal.

You have to get into Hegel's type of thinking, terminology, frame of mind...

I am not going to do more, as I explained, I understand it but cannot explain it.

Now you are in danger of doing the same old rubbish they are doing. Don't let yourself go like that...

I answered, if you are willing to hear it, in pretty darn precise terms. Do not be literal.

You have to get into Hegel's type of thinking, terminology, frame of mind...

I am not going to do more, as I explained, for the time being.

I understand it but cannot explain it.

Nope. You great big empty fraud.