Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The continuum theory is not meant to describe only material existence, but all of existence, while logic is used to address the evident structure of reality and distinct entities therein. There is no antagonistic dichotomy between the continuum theory and logic, but cooperation between them.

Let's see if there's a way to describe it better than I have thus far. Scientists have been debating whether matter fundamentally is waves or particles. As per the continuum theory, waves would be waves of something and particles would be particles of something, i.e. fundamentally there would be the continuum, mathematically modelled e.g. as the field in the field theory. This describes the matter.

Matter is the objective aspect of reality, the observed aspect. There's also the observer aspect of reality. Let's say the observer, such as some scientist, observes particles and waves. If he's a rational scientist, he'd logically deduce that all spatiotemporally detected phenomena imply corresponding undetected phenomena. Some of it is undetected because it's in spatiotemporal locations not currently observed. Some of it is undetected because the observed phenomena are phenomena of something, implying the existence of something which they are phenomena of. (The same way as physicians only observe symptoms of the disease, whereas what they are really getting at is the disease, which they can never observe directly, only via symptoms. Similarly physicists should know they are observing phenomena of reality, not directly the reality; or let's call it phenomenal reality which logically should invite to consider the underlying or concurrent non-phenomenal reality.) And some of it is undetected because it's on the observer side of reality, not on the observed side.

Towards the beginning it shows some icky l'art moderne which makes me wanna puke. I have to recover from this and try again some other time to learn the lesson of beauty.

Maybe it makes no sense to you, but I really don't see the continental and analytic philosophies as irreconcilable. Analysis and method is central to both.

The reason continuum theory to be modelled as a field it's because there's simply no matter at all...

It's not what is common but what is different.
Reading this will make anyone understand the differences but I reject the vision of complementarity between the two. Clearly one leads, the other being merely subsidiary.

*What* occurs is accounted for by means of logical analysis of the apparent elements in the system or in the model that is being studied. The "probability" in the process of this analysis is to get the definitions and labels straight and relevant. To get the delimiting definitions wrong is to make the elements in the system inconsistent, "improbable", "unlikely". This is the domain of deduction.

I am yet to see the relevance of culture and aesthetics to science and philosophy.

Each man carries a reflection of it's own culture and there's no way philosophy - nothing but the reasoning about the perennial questions - not to reflect it. Even the questions would be formulated differently leading to different answers.

Logics are a particular and special case. For some reason it is studied by two different disciplines, philosophy and mathematics, each using it's own form of notation, the content being the same.

In a nutshell,  the subjective  Bayesian  model of confirmation  says that evidence  e confirms  hypothesis  H to the extent  that an agent's  degree  of belief  in H is higher  given  evidence e than what it was or would be without evidence  e. Probability  measures  subjective  degree  of belief.  The agent's  degree  of belief  in H after evidence  e is called the posterior probability  assignment.  The degrees  of belief an agent has in a hypothesis H and its alternatives  without evidence  e are the prior degree  of belief assignments.  Inductive  inference from evidence  is a matter of updating one's degree of belief to yield a posterior  degree  of belief so as to cohere  with Bayes'  theorem.

Sure, but doesn't the fact that we can see and understand this provide an opportunity to transcend the problem and synthesise the essence of variegated cultures, experiences, and ways of inquiry? I seriously don't get it when one is able to generalise to the fact that "everybody is different" and then doesn't see the gateway opening to the unity. It shouldn't be too hard to generalise towards an actual generality, just like cold and warm are ordinarily considered opposites, but both are temperature

And isn't this realisation too in and of itself a stepping-stone to unite the two?

You write very long posts, by the way. I appreciate the style, very professorial and didactic, but it turns difficult to answer to everything. There's much more to be said but forums are like soap operas, tomorrow there will be another episode.

Btw, I have been thinking about a theory of colour, and I guess the best I can do is this: I tend to think of colours in terms of wavelength (a la Newton's theory of light) or in terms of HTML colour chart. It's easy to understand the correlation of colour-perception vis-a-vis different wavelengths. It's easy to see a calculus/equation underlying the colour chart. It's much harder to see the "depth" of colours, its saturation, its associations with other sensations (warmths and coldness), and with emotions (pleasant versus unpleasant). For me depth is primarily a spatial (geometrical) dimension.

At best I could come up with a way to describe colours in terms of contrasts, like red contrasted with green roughly the same way as light gray is contrasted with dark gray. Not sure if for you it would sound complete to describe colours in terms of light and shade, but to me it would do the trick of "depth" in colours.

The relation between art, truth and virtue it's very much the entering for a superior state of conscience that art can provide and human beings always searched for because it's inserted into our nature. Beauty is so perturbing because it expresses truth and virtue at a direct, impactive way that overcomes the necessity for Reason and escapes the constraints of verbal or written communication.
The very nature of beauty can only be the same very nature of spiritual realm and how it works has to be a fusion between subject and object. Art transforms and unite the observing subject and the observed object.
There's no other explanation.

So, a world in black and white would make no difference to you? you realize that you can say exactly the same thing about sounds and turn music into a uselessness thing...
In fact, I very much do it with many musics, just the melody gives me nausea.

The thing is that I see ethics ("goodness") and truth (comprehension of reality) perform the exact same function. They are of the spiritual realm and they create fusion between subject and object. They have a transformative and unifying effect.

You mean you shut music out when it annoys you?

So, it's not that I don't care about colours or sounds. It's that when they come from outside, they are imperfect, they can be annoying (just like Roger Scruton finds defective modern art dangerous, I find the external world in general disappointing), and there's danger of overexposure. Not so with internal world where one can create structure, coherence, light and beauty at will. It's all inside and in a better way. When the external world is maddening, it helps one to stay sane to turn inside.

Give those children paintings, music, theater, teach them that not computers.

I find visual arts much more malleable for wandering inside it and more open to discovery.
Maybe it's just a matter of individual tuning with particular ways of ethereal realities.

Then again, it's annoying that impressions are subjective and can differ widely in art.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-09-06, 21:05:18

Then again, it's annoying that impressions are subjective and can differ widely in art.

Annoying? Impressions are the essence of art.

A portrait in painting it's not a mere photograph (in the sense of record, registry). It aims to transmit the impressions the model person triggered into the painter, necessarily different and subjective varying from painter to painter.

I stop at Impressionism, the rest doesn't interest me because it opens the door to disregard technique and relativize quality.
I really like Manet, Monet, Renoir, etc. the same way I like the Dutch or the Italian painting masters. All them are amazingly good and exceptional artists.

Anyway all this it's not too much rigid. For example I appreciate very much some works of hyper realism and consider that it seeks impressions not, how many people thinks, reality at its higher level. Or even further, watch Dali's melted clocks and dream like landscapes for the first time and how to not get impressed?

As for Tarantino (more than Rodriguez) I don't think he substitutes substance for style, at the first movies the only ones I find good, very good, he has his own style, namely with multi narratives from different characters that converge for a final climax (nothing too much original, has been done in literature for ages) as well as a jumping camera  for a lively almost hysterical rhythm but there's always substance present - the reinterpretation of violence and how it relates with "normal" people. His killers are nice guys that even tells jokes.
Pulp Fiction can and should be considered a classic of cinema even if much more mainstream than Reservoir Dogs probably his masterpiece.

But yes, I agree that presenting style for substance it's what who has no substance needs to do to get some fame. Art doesn't needs fame in theory... but it helps.

We'll disagree however about any attempt of subjection, hierarchicalization or submission of Arts to Logics. I'll defend the liberation of arts versus the inexorability of logics.

The lack of morality in Tarantino and Rodriguez is not too much important to me, I don't expect them to be moralizing missionaries.

Finally, about "good old uncle Ersi", well, I never thought you to be a teenager but at my early fifties I like to convince myself that I can understand both extremes of human age. If not now, then when?

He had style.

I would be okay if they were morally neutral, ambivalent or ambiguous, like old film noir is. The thing is that they are demoralising missionaries.

Logic obviously has structure. In order to extract a valid conclusion, the premises have to be shaped a certain way. Similarly, art has structure, which means that in order to give rise to valuable/everlasting art, certain conditions have to be met, such as the right material, the right shape, consideration of purpose, etc. If the appropriate conditions are not considered properly, the art will not be best possible. Just like in logic, if the premises are faulty, the conclusion will also be faulty.

To model things does not mean to subject them to logic. Modelling is an approach to make things manageable, whatever the things may be, logic, art, entities, systems or processes.