Posts by Martin

It should be made clear that the article is rather against Plato's idealism. Putting Kant in the same bucket as Plato is wrong because Kant removed the ideal forms and Plato's nonsense that reality is truthfully revealed only by the logic of philosophers like Plato. There are other issues with the text but just removing Kant from the text would already improve the credibility.

Welcome J.Tycherne!

Quote

Would a Kantian take the position that it is not true that there are no supernatural gods, not true that there is no life after death, and not true that pleasure is the guide of life?

Kant himself does take these positions. However, later Kantians may differ. I am an Epicurean, not a Kantian. My reference to being "Kantian" is limited to him as being named as the original source of the distinction between a model and truth. He used different terminology and an idealistic framework. Others reformulated his epistemology within materialism. Other than that and his version of the golden rule, I do not know much about other aspects of his philosophy. I have read very little from Kant himself but more from those who refer to him.

I found two references for dummies on Kant's epistemology and one reference for professionals. Although the one frome Nature has been created with A.I. (which I usually would not want to read or share) I have to concede that it is convincing and easy to understand. The second reference is riddled with mistakes but seems to correctly present Kant's epistemology. The third one is mostly above my league:

Kantian Philosophy and Epistemology | Nature Research Intelligence

https://yohanesnuwara.medium.com/the-epistemology-of-immanuel-kant-5e5e7fbd1e48

Kant’s Ongoing Relevance for Philosophy of Science | Kantian Review | Cambridge Core

Kant’s Ongoing Relevance for Philosophy of Science - Volume 28 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

The rejection of both plain rationalism and plain empiricism is an overlap between Epicurus and Kant.
Kant replaced them with a unified epistemology drawing from parts of both of them. Based on his new approach to epistemology, scientists usually present their theories as models of reality instead of truth on reality.
Epicurus replaced rationalism and empiricism with another unified epistemology within which the most basic theories still claim truth on reality. This claim is an unproven belief which is akin to religion and Platonism and not necessary for a materialist world view.
A philosophy which rejects Plato's idealism more profoundly and does not make superfluous claims on truth is more convincing. Under this aspect, my choice is Kantian instead of Epicurean.

Welcome Ludenbergcastle!

Welcome Cornelius Peripateticus!

Welcome Hania!

Welcome Martijn!

I started a conversation between us.

For now, I see the isotacheian model as something complementary, e.g. as an exercise for students, but not as an alternative way of teaching special relativity.

Quote

Would you try California’s fastest zip lines?

Yes!

Whereas the analogy with the Lorentz transform is valid, the math and some other details might need further correction. I expect to dedicate some time slots with sufficient ability to concentrate to figure this out soon. Depending on what I come up with, I will write it here or in a private message. Regarding the normalization and Entailment 2 (where I got stuck the last time I worked on the paper), a video call might be good. (Teams or Zoom work well for me).

From an Epicurean perspective, a guilty conscience may be considered a preconception if it has arisen from socialization in one's group and not from religious indoctrination. Such a preconception may be more efficient than fear of punishment.

Welcome Claire!

Welcome Hyakinthos!

Welcome D Campbell!

As speed has a unit, the normalization would need to be a bit more elaborate than just equating s with 1. One way to normalize would be to divide b by s but that might require adapting some of the text. I found no mistake in the text so far, but as mentioned, I need more time to finish.

I am halfway through with reading the publication und do not yet know by when I will finish and provide a more detailed reply.
I send this quickly in advance just in case there is a follow-up publication in the works: Please hold back or correct a mistake in the derivation:
After the correct equation b = sqr(s² - a²), a factor s is missing, which carries through in the subsequent equations.

Welcome JCBlackmon!

I am a physicist, too, and guess the derivation is similar to the derivation from the absolute constance of the speed of light and the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference. Please explain or share a link to your publication.

Welcome EdGenX!

Further improving bodies with implants, exoskeletons, brain interfaces and the like and extending lifespans is likely to happen. Full transhumanism by leaving the body/uploading something to machinery is a delusion. What can be uploaded is a reductionist copy of some aspects. I would not consider that as continuation of my existence. Transhumanism is an idea motivated by fear of death. Getting rid of the fear of death in accordance with Epicurus' philosophy and modern science and eventually embracing death when it happens (or suicide when pain permanently outweighs pleasure) makes more sense to me.