Plasmatic,
The realization that one is paralyzed conceptually if one genuinely doubts one's own existence and the validity of one's only means of contact with mind-independent existents (the senses).
Surely this describes a
pragmatic acceptance of the nature and limitations of our existence and implies the scepticism that must be inherent. I do agree that it is an accurate representation of my philosophical premise.
Quote from wiki:
Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic,
On this basis I am most definitely objectivist.
Quote from wiki:
Peirce's pragmatism, that is, pragmaticism, differed in Peirce's view from other pragmatisms by its commitments to the spirit of strict logic, the immutability of truth, the reality of infinity, and the difference between (1) actively willing to control thought, to doubt, to weigh reasons, and (2) willing not to exert the will, willing to believe.
On this basis, I am happy to declare myself a pragmatist, or should I say pragmaticist.
An "everyday", rather than academically philosophical, definition of Pragmatic:
Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory. Down-to-Earth. Realistic. Accepting that limitations exist.
Example:
The realisation that one is paralysed conceptually if one genuinely doubts one's own existence.
Thus, if you require it, I might best be categorised as objectivist with perhaps more than a hint of rationalist....I think?
Is the premise that all entities are physical on the same order as Causality?
Yes.
Can Ontology and mereology have an axiomatic foundation on the same order?
Yes.
Also, you really need to ask yourself what you mean by "universe". I havent read the whole thread so if you have clarified this please direct me to the post.
In my statement I define "the" universe as, to infinity and beyond, and, "our" universe as, to where the galaxies end with only empty space beyond (with no implied suggestion that such a region exists and no additional definition offered). In conversation, both written and verbal, it is highly likely that I may use "the" universe to refer to both definitions - ho-hum.
the whole "lets start with motion" thing is wrong. Motion presupposes that which moves.
Entities (which = bodies = objects = particles) are implicit in motion. Even absolute motion requires at least one body.
Michael, how does a flexible sea of balls not still presuppose an area where the balls are not touching? Or are you saying as long as some part of the ball is touching all the others your mediation is satisfied?
I am not sure of your meaning here, but if this helps: Things of which I am not certain:
Michael's Particle Mediation: If you fire a gun at a can, the can will move; action at a distance - the gun moved the can. But wait, the can was actually moved by the bullet. The bullet mediated the action. Particle mediation is by bombardment.
As for my present (but flexible) description of the quantum aether. If we imagine a quantum particle to have a radius of 1 metre, then its closest neighbours in the "quantum field" (or aether) will more than 1 million metres away. I would put an
upper limit of around 10^-25 to 10^-26m for the radius, but quite possibly smaller. Aether particles rarely collide and there is sufficient space in the field for a string of aether particles (a photon) to pass a considerable distance through the field before significant degradation occurs due to collisions (this may be the cause of cosmological redshift). An electron has a mass 10^19 times greater than a quantum particle.
What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:
1) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
6) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
7) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
8) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
9) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
10) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
11) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.
Michael
