[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_0345.jpg (7 KB, 195x258)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
If the reality we experience is the only reality we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality?
>>
>>23820845
Kinda wierd for there to be no reality when I blackout after too many drinks.
>>
>>23820865
Drinks of what?
>>
>>23820845
just discovered metaphysics? start with the presocratics buddy
>>
File: file.jpg (139 KB, 900x711)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>If I know of A and I only know of A, how do I know there isn't a B or C?
what kinda stupid line of thinking is this?
>>
>>23821271
elaborate on this without devolving into solipsism (you cannot)
>>
>>23821284
no
>>
>>23820845
Generally, you’re going to hear babble about justified belief contained within the safest parameters of experience. Which, to me, seemed pointless since ontological narratives are crafted on this belief and, also, imagination or creativity in thought or theory becomes impossible or redundant.
>>
>>23821312
*…ontological beliefs are crafted around this narrative while never answering this base question.
>>
>>23820845
Skip the metaphysics, go straight into theoretical physics. Extra dimensions, nondeterminism, uncomputability, emergent spacetime, the special role of consciousness ... the rabbit hole is open for you if you are willing to learn the math
>>
>>23821338
Can you recommend me some reading that isn’t from a Deepak Chopra-tier quack? (I’m genuinely interested, I don’t mean to be rude to you anon)
>>
>>23821347
I liked Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" very much.
>>
File: file.png (17 KB, 487x287)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>23821338
a good start for the uninitiated but will dissolve into numerical nonsense in the end.
go pluck me a negative number of apples while you're at it (no offence)
>>
>>23821358
You don't need to know the math though, you just need to understand what the implications of it are. Penrose doesn't seem to get this or doesn't trust his audience enough, so he wastes most of the book explaining the math. I've also read a few other physicists on metaphysics: Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Rovelli. Schrödinger was the more interesting, but it was in no way superior to studying Zeno's paradoxes or Plato's Parmenides. I just started reading GEB and it seems much like Emperor's New Mind but Höfstadter is far more direct than Penrose.
>>
File: heidegger bench.jpg (42 KB, 423x450)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
You don't. That's how a horizon works.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.