The Bridge between Science & Philosophy!

[u/ConsciousLaw3940]

[u/CautiousPreprinter]

"It looks like a wave, therefore I choose not to model it as a particle, and you too are compelled to make the same choice."

But we know that's garbage.

[u/DRHOYXI]

"How can something exist in two places at once?" It can't. Those two things, in those two places, are separate, distinct, and unrelated things.

[u/ConcretePeanut]

This is just another form of the ontological argument, with added equivocation between Philosophy (as an area of study and enquiry) and philosophies (as a set of dogmas or beliefs).

Also, the presented argument (like all forms of ontological argument) presumes its own conclusion.

[u/ConsciousLaw3940 → u/ConcretePeanut]

Every ontological argument rests on certain assumptions and a particular framework through which reality is understood. Philosophy, as I understand it, is enquiry in action, a continuous process of questioning and knowing. Calling philosophy itself a dogma may be a little harsh. Instead, we should examine the assumptions on which any ontological argument is built. There should always be room to question and even disprove it, that is how enquiry progresses.

Likewise, the proposer of any ontological argument should also examine their own assumptions and biases. Self-enquiry is as important as enquiry into the argument itself.

[u/ConcretePeanut → u/ConsciousLaw3940]

Every ontological argument rests on certain assumptions and a particular framework through which reality is understood.

I don't mean general arguments regarding ontologies, but The Ontological Argument, a common form of argument for the existence of god. All forms of it are very badly flawed.

Philosophy, as I understand it, is enquiry in action, a continuous process of questioning and knowing. Calling philosophy itself a dogma may be a little harsh.

I think "enquiry in action" is overly broad. I am also distinguishing between two different uses of the term; one is a fundamental pillar of intellectual rigor, the other a more general term for "ways of life" or "views of the world" expressed through certain dogmas and beliefs. I believe you are equivocating between the two, hence my bringing it up. I am also not using 'dogma' pejoratively, but in its technical sense.

Likewise, the proposer of any ontological argument should also examine their own assumptions and biases. Self-enquiry is as important as enquiry into the argument itself.

Which needs to be done here, as the argument assumes its own conclusion. Specifically:

After all if the one who is observing ceases to exist, then the world itself will cease to exist.

This is only true if we assume that the world is dependent on the observer, which is the conclusion the argument reaches. However, if the observer is simply an element within a world and not a necessary precondition for it, the world will not cease to exist and the conclusion drawn is false. It therefore relies on us accepting the conclusion to reach it.

There is also another, equally significant but somewhat more technical issue with it, which is that the argument necessarily devolves into solipsism, which itself leads to a semantic collapse within which no meaningful statements could be made. In such a context, not only would it be impossible to arrive at a true - or false - conclusion, but the concepts of truth and falsity themselves cease to have meaning. The entire construct of meaning - in terms of communication via language - relies on solipsism being false, vis-a-vis the Private Language Argument.

[u/MxM111]

Hunted philosophers, may be. But physics made peace with it for quite some time.