All discussions

We're pleased to announce the launch of a new site: PhilArchive

As its name indicates, PhilArchive is an open access e-print archive for philosophical works.  PhilArchive is a relaunch and rebranding of the archive service that has been present within PhilPapers since 2009.  The archive service has been widely used, but we have found that some philosophers are unaware of it because of its location within PhilPapers.  We anticipate that the new PhilArchive website will significantly increase awareness and use of the service.  It will also help to logically separate PhilPapers open access content (which is completely free to all) from its indexing service (for which we ask universities to pay a fee).

At launch, PhilArchive includes the 27,000 works already in the PhilPapers archive, making it by far the largest open access archive in philosophy.  PhilPapers and PhilArchive will remain tightly integrated, with all archived papers on one service automatically appearing on the other service ... (read more)

We are pleased to announce the launch of a new look for PhilPapers. We have a new logo and a new design to go with it. The new design is more functional and more mobile-friendly.

Our new logo is the winning submission to last year's PhilPapers logo design contest. The winners are Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll from Florida (a link to their web pages has been added to the footer of the site for those who might be interested in working with them). We received about 300 submissions to the contest, many of which were excellent and very professional. The PhilPapers board chose finalists and then polled hundreds of people to choose the winner. We had to select just one design, but we would like to thank all the participants for their excellent contributions. We're lucky to have such a supportive community for this service.

In the weeks and months to come we will be announcing a number of exciting new services. We look forward to sharing these with you.

Or should I say Goliath Chalmers? Why did you choose such a last name for your alias?  Did you may be feel like grabbing' m by the...? 

[to the reader: if you get this post, you'd better immediately save it. It wouldn't surprise me if it got deleted.]

https://philpapers.org/post/26794

Call for papers

Journal of Philosophical Investigations of University of Tabriz-Iran

Call for Papers

Language: English

 Volume 21 (autumn and winter), 2017

 Deadline: Jul / Aug, 15, 2017 

   Word Limit: Articles range from 5000–10000 words

 

Open journal of Philosophical Investigations of University of Tabriz-Iran is an open access and peer-reviewed journal published by Department of Philosophy at University of Tabriz. The main objective of PI is to provide an intellectual platform for the international scholars in field of philosophy. PI aims to promote philosophical studies and investigations in philosophy. The journal publishes research papers in the fields of philosophy and branches of philosophy. Main topics may include research papers about:

• Ontology
• Epistemology
• Moral Philosophy
• Political philosophy
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science
• Meta-philosophy
• Philosophy of history
• Philosophy of mathematics
• Philosophy of mind
• Islamic philosophy
• ….
• Other related topics about phil ... (read more)

[See also:
Upside down, round and round
Through the Looking Glass: Is the distinction between "real" and "virtual" image real?
]

Where should this thread be placed? Cognitive Sciences, along with my other threads about vision and other brain processes? Or by Physical Sciences, along with the countless myths on which contemporary science is built?

Light is a subjective phenomenon, only known to living creatures as far as we can tell. But it is also a physical phenomenon that stands at the basis of modern science. The way physicists understand light is since du Broglie (1925) the way they understand matter. From gravitational waves to an expanding universe, all depends on how we interpret light phenomena. To change the perception of light in science is to change science itself.
However tempting that maybe, my objectives are much less ambitious.

Allow me to start with a simple mirror and invite you to step inside with me. Who knows? Maybe we will encounter Alice in our journey. Just as long as w ... (read more)

I've recently rewritten my critique of Alvin Plantinga's persuasive modal version of the argument for the existence of God. I would be pleased for readers to review this draft version and let me know if I've made any basic logical blunders.

In this essay, I uncover both the strengths and weaknesses of Plantinga's argument. I conclude that while the argument is probably formally valid, it is ultimately unsound. I argue that it's only non-analytic premise is not only false, but necessarily so. You can read the draft version of my essay at www.RationalRealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/plantinga-ontological-argument.html

The recently updated/started pages no longer seem to update.
DA

A thread of mine is being spammed by Pieter, and after one response from him all I get are posts in my thread The Logic of Physics: Some Problematic Concepts which have nothing to do with said thread. The people responsible at Philpapers apparently do not care about this thread pollution. In fact I know of an illustrious person who he is probably very happy of such a system glitch. If glitch it is. I won't be the first time I have been the object of such bully practices. As you all know three of my threads have been deleted already, and I won't mention numerous other incidents that hinder me as a user of this forum. You would expect the people responsible for this forum to simply ban me if they consider me an undesirable member. Somehow they do not have the balls. So, what of it, Goliath? Do you want to fight it out in the open, of will you stick to your sneaky tricks?

https://ia800307.us.archive.org/13/items/treatiseonlight031310mbp/treatiseonlight031310mbp.pdf

[pagination is given as page number in pdf file/page number in original text]
Chapter One
The first lines sound very strange coming from the founder of wave theory since they consecrate the standing of the opposite view, Geometric Optics:
"As happens in all the sciences in which Geometry is applied to matter, the demonstrations concerning Optics are founded on truths drawn from experience." Huygens sees therefore no conflict between his new approach and Optics which are based on the behavior of particles of light. Einstein's wave-particle duality was certainly nothing new!
Huygens therefore does not doubt the validity of optical laws that say that light travels in straight lines, that the angles of incidence and reflection are equal or that refraction obeys the law of sines.
That is all and well, but what is the relation between those particles that make up light, and those waves that the same part ... (read more)

I worry that I may have missed something and my apologies if so, but I can find no global category for my writings. The topic is usually nonduality, either directly or as the general context, yet there is no category for this. I do not wish to use the 'Idealism' category since it is not a mind-only theory, nor 'Monism' since it is not a reduction to a numerical one. 

Nondualism is an ancient and firmly-established position that should be distinguished from most forms of Idealism and Monism. Yet there is nowhere to place essays on this topic. At present I am forced to use 'Metaphysics. Misc.', which makes little sense given the respectability, importance and global popularity of my view.  

The absence of such a category means that writing cannot be collected together and browsed under a common heading and cannot be searched for by those who wish to familiarise themselves with this view.

It also suggests that there is a blind-spot in the approach to philosophy being adopted here. I can und ... (read more)

Can someone explain to me how to make sense of direct realism, more precisely : how can one claim that to perceive is to have direct access to the object itself if we grant that perceiving is the end product of a certain pattern of neurons firing ?

I can understand direct realism on aristotelian grounds where an objective form leaves the object and penetrates the intellect, but if firing neurons are involved, aren't we obliged to say that the brain reconstructs the "thing in itself" ? (I understand also the problems involved with the theory of sense-data and the motivations that originate from physicalism : my question is purely regarding the constraints imposed by basic neurological ideas).

Aristotle claimed that the supralunar realm was composed solely of ether. But did he believe the moon was also made only of ether or did he express doubt about this ? And if he did believe the moon was made solely of ether, how did he explain away the imperfections of the moon which can be seen by the naked eye ?

Dear Mr&Ms.

I don't know how can I start, then i said: Wittgenstein in TLP, said that time is work of chronometer.
I thought that this could be expressed by formula.I propose this formula below:

P/M = Tw   - This is time in which object "a" going way "z". It is simple and i said that is time of way.

But

If we want to have formula for time understood as working chronometer, we need minimum two objects, then:

 amp((P1/M1) + (P2/M2)) = Tc

In variables:

amp(x1/m1+...x2/m2+...xn/mn)/mo= Tc

Dictionary:

P - speed of object
M- meters
amp - amplitude
Tw - Time of way ex. car go in road in 40 sec.
Tc - Time understood as chronometer ex. 1 sec or quantum of actions
x - speed of object
m - distance
mo - distance between objects

Configuration is rearrengment objects in space. When appear move, then time appear too, but to came time,we need space, object and move. "Move" came when object change his position in space under the influence of power.

With regards and hope for comments,
P. A. Grabowski

Dear Ms.&Mr.

On my own calculate and experiments power of gravitation is expressed by:

M+M/2M - 5% = 2,5%M + 2,5%M = PG

Dictionary:
M - Mass
PG - Power of gravitation.

It is not dynamic power but power of attraction.

I stand below, following hypothesis:

The force of gravity is 2.5% by weight.
100 kg can achieved with power 2.5 kgN
100 kg attracts with 2.5 kgN
When the force is balanced because of the distance, the body gravitate to each other as long as they are rotated.
As a result of fission  atom arises 2.5% of its mass calculated for example, in kgN
To implosion followed the mass that is reduced by fission would begin to attract, but with the outbreak of falling apart. As a result of the implosion would yield more energy than the result of cleavage.
The star which burns up and make the implosion, turns into a supernova, which is 2.5% of its weight. Supernova could be star around witch is bigger pressure, and fission give us implosion.
The star, who is falls and will be split turns into a black ho ... (read more)

Did you know that many non-Christians celebrate New Year? Of course for them, and for many Christians also, it is only a happy calender event, and usually only "westernized" people really care about it. Still, it is another international aspect of a secularization process that started a very long time ago. We are very far from Anno Domini, or the Year of our Lord. But when have people ever rejected an opportunity to party? After all, they still celebrate their own religious events, including their own New Year, very often in a very different way. More traditional.
Anyway, 

Happy New Year.

Spooky!
The issue of two particles communicating with each other faster than light has divided great minds like Einstein and Bohr. It is also the most spectacular proof that Nature cannot be understood with common sense. Two particles that seem to communicate with each other beyond space and time! That is the stuff of legends and myths, and still, it looks like an undeniable scientific truth confirmed aga ... (read more)

me: you know I'm not... I do not...
You: so what? Don't you like gifts?
me: of course I do. But that is not...
You: what do I care why you do it? Catholics and protestants butchered each other for centuries. But not on Christmas. Isn't that great?
George: just like a truce during the Ramadan
You: don't kill your neighbor on the Sabbath.
George: don't forget Buddha.
You: Yeah! Meditate, don't make war!
George: that is also the best protection you can have against crazies. People of all religions at each other's celebrations. 
You: And more gifts for the children.
George: Shops will love it, so you don't have to worry about publicity!
You (laughing): they will have no trouble convincing all parents they must buy gifts for the Ashura. (adding hurriedly) Not the bloody version, the one for the kids.
me: I admit, it is a very nice Christmas thought.
You: so what if it is naive and won't solve anything immediately?
George: absolutely. Things take time, and the longer you wait to start, the longer it takes.
m ... (read more)