schele

For the term science, there is actually no exact definition. In fact, we can even consider it to be any knowledge and experience that is studied and not proven false. Yes, loosely speaking, Chinese feng shui and Western mysticism can also be considered as science. So in this article, we will make it more rigorous for discussion.

The following discussion on the concept of [science] does not include biology, as well as knowledge and experience that cannot be strictly proven, such as certain theories in physics. In fact, science includes these.

Should Philosophy be Science?#

• Science, as an adjective, is not a slogan or a subject for exams in middle and high school. It is the nature of propositions, roughly as follows:

  • Clearly defined, the definition of the topic being discussed is legitimate.
    • The definition in the topic cannot have a circular dependency, and it must be interpretable. An example of a counterexample is as follows:

      "What is objective?" - "Objective is the opposite of subjective." - "What is subjective?" - "Subjective is the opposite of objective."
      "Objective refers to something that exists outside of human consciousness, exists independently of human consciousness, and is not subject to human will."

    • The definition in the topic cannot be ambiguous or contradictory, it must be self-consistent. An example and analysis of a counterexample is as follows:
      • "What is objective?" - "Objective is something that exists independently of human consciousness, not subject to human will, such as natural laws, physical laws."
        • There are undefined concepts here.
          • Is 'existence' in this case existence or validity?
          • Does 'transfer' refer to a change in state or something else?
          • Are the concepts of 'existing independently of human consciousness' and 'not subject to human will' mutually exclusive or inclusive?
          • What exactly is human consciousness/will?
            • If I am a brain in a vat and everything is a vivid dream simulated by myself, are you me, am I him, are you her, am I everything? Would this be considered human consciousness?
        • This definition has flaws, and we have the following proof:
          • Proof 1:
            • If something depends on the existence of an objective thing, then obviously it meets the definition of objective.
            • According to scientific common sense, human consciousness obviously does not depend on the existence of human consciousness.
            • Here, let us temporarily assume that 'transfer' refers to a change in state of the object. Then obviously, it also 'does not depend on human will for transfer', for the following reasons:
              • If 'transfer' includes indirect influence, then the use of tools by humans to affect the physical environment would make the material world no longer objective, which violates the common sense that 'the material world is objective'.
              • If 'transfer' does not include indirect influence, then obviously human consciousness is only influenced by itself and external input information, so strictly speaking, 'not subject to human will' is true.
            • Therefore, human consciousness is objective, so everything is objective, and subjective things are objective.
          • Proof 2:
            • If I make it so that any objective law and objective fact is not observed by me (by committing suicide), then for me, everything objective changes due to my will, and their existence changes from being provable to unprovable. This method is universally applicable to all human consciousness, so everything objective is subjective.
  • Reproducibility, the conclusion of the topic being discussed can be reproduced. An example of a counterexample is as follows:

    "As long as I step into that spot in the river at the same time and in the same way, I can obtain a body that is immune to all poisons and invulnerable to weapons."

  • Verifiability, the conclusion of the topic being discussed is verifiable. An example of a counterexample is as follows:

    "There is a living paper girl that only I can see here."

  • Logical and common sense compliance, the logic contained in the topic being discussed must be valid and comply with relevant common sense. An example of a counterexample is as follows:

    "Drinking too much water will cause water poisoning, which is reproducible and verifiable, so we should not drink water."

• If a proposition under discussion does not have the nature of science, then discussing it will become a noisy argument about who is louder. We assume that a proposition should be scientific, and philosophical propositions are no exception. Otherwise, there is no need to discuss it.

Dialogue 1#

• "I think when we use the adjective 'objective', it means 'according to facts', so I think 'objective' means 'fact'."
• "If we simply look at the literal meaning, it should mean something like 'observing like a guest'. I think it should imply a calm and rational perspective... By the way, the problem is whether the new definition can solve the problems caused by the original definition. Is the human mind and will considered facts?"
• "I think so, but here comes a new problem. What is the definition of 'fact'? I think we should first examine the true definition of 'fact'. According to the explanation of 'fact' on the internet, it refers to actual events. But is the difference between fact and event really in this actual occurrence? I think this should be described with a more rigorous definition."
• "Then how about 'anything proven to be true in the real world'? The naming of the phenomenon of the human mind and will is obviously observed by everyone, it is a fact. Even if we find out later that it is not what it seems, as long as it can be proven, then there is no problem."
• "I think that should be the correct answer, but if I commit suicide and no longer observe everything, and everything cannot be proven by me, then nothing is a fact, nor is it objective... Then there is another question, what is subjective? Things that cannot be proven to be true?"
• "I think you're right, but not completely. We have found through logical reasoning that the original definition of objective is wrong, it has been proven to be invalid... Oh wait, it's not unproven, it's proven to be invalid. Then there is no problem."
• "Then I have another question. Are mathematical theorems objective? Does a mathematical theorem exist in the real world?"
• "Then I also have a problem. Haven't we heard mathematicians talk about Gödel's ontological proof of the existence of God? If the existence of a substitute messenger is actually true but we cannot prove it due to lack of certain knowledge, is the existence of the substitute messenger objective or subjective?"

What are Objective and Subjective?#

• In fact, the painter's final question in the dialogue clarifies the last key point of the definitions of objective and subjective, that is, how should we define objective and subjective.

• Generally speaking, we consider the real world as a scope, and all propositions that can be proven true within this scope are facts, that is, objective. And propositions that cannot be proven true are biases. On top of this, propositions that cannot be proven true or false are subjective.

  In fact, we rarely use the term objective, because it is simply synonymous with fact.

  • Mathematical theorems are objective, the client who owes the painter money and blocked the painter is objective, and the screenwriter winning the Nobel Prize in Literature is obviously a bias. The content of most religious beliefs is subjective, just like you cannot prove that Schele can solve the mathematical proof given by mathematicians in the remaining 20 minutes, although Schele often fails.

• For cases that are not general, how many facts there are and what facts are determined by the 'real world' we are studying. Here we can more clearly point out that this 'real world' is actually the current context. Facts within the context are objective, and things outside the context cannot be proven, so they are subjective.

  • However, when discussing what is a fact and what is not, it is important to constantly check which context we are in. For those who believe in religion, their context is not the real world, but the 'real world where religious content is true'.

Dialogue 2#

• "Well... Art is a subjective construct, and we can map it based on facts... Subjectivity becomes a new fact after switching contexts..."
• "Now I feel that those so-called materialists and idealists I heard before are just rubbish that should be thrown away."
• "Aren't they just excuses or jokes made by people who are afraid of seeing things that are not 'scientific'?"

Everything is...#

• What is everything? How do we classify everything? In fact, we can classify it however we want, any classification is fine.

  • We can follow the common sense of biology and tell ourselves that everything is information, that everything we perceive is neural signals in the brain. Therefore, everything we perceive is information from the brain, so everything is information. Or we can simply divide everything into subjective and objective, and what can be proven is fact, and what cannot be proven is subjective. Or even simpler, we can divide everything into this and that. But we can go further and declare that we have found the answer in the question itself, everything is everything.
  • We can even classify everything based on identity, that "xx is xx". Then we have more possibilities because now we can have one thing belonging to different classifications at the same time.

• But for those philosophers who are looking for the source of everything, this is not the answer they want. They not only want to classify everything, but also want to find out where everything comes from.

• So we have a classic but outdated question: "Does matter determine consciousness or does consciousness determine matter?" and its extended question "Is everything determined by matter?"

• According to the usual style, we will analyze this question using a scientific approach.

  • Since consciousness/mind/spirit is a morpheme and there are very few corresponding scientific achievements at present, we have no way to scientifically analyze it from this aspect. Therefore, we will analyze it from the physical definition of matter and the philosophical definition of matter.
    • It should be noted that we only know that the neural signals of the brain are closely related to the mind/thought, but the specific relationship is unknown. In other words, it could be positive or negative, and it is even possible that there is no direct relationship at all. We also don't know if replicating brain electrical signals will generate the same thoughts.
  • According to the classical physics and chemistry definition of matter, matter refers to things composed of atoms and molecules in a certain pattern with mass and volume. However, if we consider non-classical physics such as relativity, matter roughly refers to things with non-zero rest mass and non-zero volume. However, when combined with common sense, we can find some ridiculous contradictions.

    "In fact, physicists don't care about what matter is. They know that it exists, and they only care about its properties."

    • Photons have neither rest mass nor volume, and it is obvious that they are neither 'matter' nor 'consciousness'. For a part of the mechanism of how this world works, physical laws are neither matter nor consciousness.
      • Even if we use 'fact' as the definition of matter and treat physical laws as 'matter', we can find that the core of the debate on whether matter determines physical laws or consciousness determines physical laws is somewhat unclear. In fact, there is no way to find any evidence to prove whether the world will disappear like a machine with the power turned off when you commit suicide and no longer perceive it. All discussions beyond this are subjective, or even biased.

• After analysis, we found that if we analyze this question according to the definition of physics, it is meaningless. If we analyze it according to the definition of philosophy itself, the definition itself is problematic. Even if we ignore the problem with the definition, we can only know that we currently have no way of knowing, or at least objectively speaking, we don't know if you use logical reasoning.

Dialogue 3#

• "Who determines who should generally be a premise for judging another proposition. Taking this question out alone is very strange. It is better to say 'everything is something, everything is everything', which is more interesting."
• "Those debaters usually use it to deny certain things. In history, materialists used it to deny the doctrines of a priori morality and religion. They believed that these things do not exist, and only illusions exist. People should abandon these things."
• "Okay, classic question, what is the definition of existence? My evaluation is that philosophy is not as good as physics. Discussing these things makes me feel like I'm swimming in asphalt. How about going to Burger King for some fries today?"

Note#

• In fact, when the general public says that they are materialists, they are simply conservatively rejecting any form of supernatural existence. They don't think so much.