Currently reading chapter 1 and I've just finished the section 'The Primacy of Physics' which is the first section where I really feel like a fair bit went over my head. This book is really the first actual work of just metaphysics I've read, so I'm not familiar with the forms of physicalism that are described in this section. Two rough categories for types of physicalism are given:
- Part-whole physicalism.
- Supervenience physicalism.
They also talked about Melnyks "realizationism" which completely went over my head in their brief description of it but I think they said they were going to return to it later so hopefully that will be cleared up.
As for the two types given above, I have a basic understand of what supervenience relations are from meta-ethics. The SEP's explanation of Supervenience physicalism is David Lewis' dot-matrix. It would seem that this is just a description of a position of the type 1 which directly entails 2.
Question 1
Can you have a form of physicalism that falls into 1 but doesn't entail 2? And what are the differences between them? It seems to me that supervenience physicalism would allow for strong emergence of some kind while part-whole physicalism entails a simple reductionism. Is this the key difference?
(I realise that this distinction might just be a lousy one. If nothing else, what is the difference supposed to be?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When justifying this idea of the PPC (Primacy of Physics Constraint), they provide two arguments which seem to amount to:
- When non-physical entities or processes are posited which "fix the chances" of physical outcomes, they have failed to be successful theories.
- Physical entities, processes, laws, etc have been historically successful in their application to the special sciences. E.g. the use of electromagnetism in the description of neurochemical and biochemical processes.
This is mostly my own summary so hopefully I got it right. My issue here is with the notion of "physical", in that I don't really know what it means. They use a handful of examples, such as forces that were posited to explain the process of fermentation, or forces that could be posited to explain chemical bonding before the structure of the atom was really understood to explain the idea of a "non-physical" force. They quote Broad when he said that chemistry is the "most plausible" candidate
... keep reading on reddit ➡See title. In this scenario the bishopric of Rome continues to exist but its primacy and the title of Pope is abolished in 1049. Assume that it's still seen as a particularly important bishopric but on the same level as the Patriarch of Constantinople rather than claiming primacy over it. What are the knock-on effects of this? Does the Catholic Church remain unified? How does this affect the prevalence of Christianity in the modern day?
Have you noticed something? If you protest against something bad like encroachments and littering on footpaths, or noise pollution, the immediate reaction of the public is that you are "mad." The second reaction is belligerent.
"Neta banna hai kya?" (You want to become a political leader?) Abey...agar neta banna tha toh I would be the one encouraging encroachments of pandals and sponsoring the loudspeakers. Always give the people what they want is the first rule of becoming a neta. If there is a majority of regressive asswipes in your constituency, you damn well make sure you bring back the worst aspects of social life in the 18th century. That's the way to roll. The spoilsport who tries to make the place a little more decent won't get a single vote. In fact, anti national; is the best way to describe him.
Few days ago I posted regarding noise level at Shiv Sena Dassera function. As expected, majority avoided it and remaining down voted it. Why does the educated youth of India does not realise the impact of noise pollution on health and mental peace. I know we have bigger problems to deal with and some of you may blatantly regard this as a first world problem, but is it too much to ask for?
“18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” -Matthew 16:18-19
This verse is used by Catholics to back up the primacy of the pope of Rome. But from a scholarly perspective...is this really what Jesus meant? That Peter would be head if his physical church? If I need to clarify or narrow my question down please let me know!
Edit:head not hess...damn autocorrect
I'm aware of the "People's Budget" and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, but this was far from the start of the supremacy of the Commons. As early as 1671 the House of Commons passed a resolution stating "That in all aids given to the King by the Commons, the rate of tax ought not to be altered by the Lords".
How did this state of affairs come to be? Was it the civil war, or does it go back even earlier than that?
I was raised Catholic. Christianity has had schisms where people have left and founded their own offshoot of Christianity that they feel is more correct. I have heard that Arabic is the least changed language worldwide for thousands of years, due in large part to the idea that Allah revealed what he revealed in Arabic because that tongue was suited to his message. The consistency of message seems to be a cultural and religious priority, and I think it's just really cool.
I'm wondering if that's also why there haven't been names of new religions rather than, say, sects. Am I on the right track?
Certainly there are disagreements. I have heard that a lot of the religion that isn't in the book is based on scholars, imams, and their interpretations. Also prophets who may or may not be recognized by this or that group? If I've got this right...
-
halal - this is a good thing to do! Do this!
-
Haram - forbidden! Don't ever do this! You might not go straight to hell about it, but it's forbidden
-
there's a third category whose name I forgot, discouraged except when good options aren't bountiful.
-
hadith - basically a revealed rule?
-
Ikhtilaf - scholars disagree
Do I have most of that right? I find it difficult to engage with Muslims in discussion sometimes because if anything seems remotely like criticism of Islam, it is met with the "no true Scotsman" defense, and discussion goes nowhere. I did not come here to argue, though. Just curious about what's absolute besides the book, how sects form, what their boundaries are (hadith adhered to by sect?), how new rules are adopted (ijma, but then is it the first generation, whole contemporary world, or what, like whose opinions count toward The Rules)?
If my questions seem poorly suited to learning how rules are decided on and adopted, and by whom, by all means just post and answer the more illuminating question.
