7 Answers

  1. Well, why not? What did Parmenides say?

    That being is eternal, it has no beginning and no end. We don't know if our universe has a beginning or an end, but we can assume that it doesn't, and in this sense everything is as Parmenides said.

    That being is shaped like a ball. And what is the shape of the universe? The observable universe appears to be shaped like a ball.

    That being is one, there are no others. And we do not know other universes, and if we do, it will only mean that existence is larger than we thought, and includes several universes and what is in between.

    The most difficult point is that all being is one. That different objects are only an appearance, behind which there is one indivisible being. That there is no void. We know that the so-called physical vacuum is not empty, it constantly generates particles. We can, in principle, interpret particles as fields that extend over the entire universe, but have a peak in the place where we can localize the particle. As the orbitals of electrons are the place of probable localization of the electron, and so it can be anywhere, spread out throughout the universe, but with the greatest probability in the region of the orbital. Rigid bodies are a superposition of these fields. It remains only to create some unified field theory that will say that all these fields are the manifestation of a single force and call this force being.

    No traffic? Well, the movement takes place in time, and in four-dimensional space-time, this time is not really there, but there are objects extending in this space along the fourth dimension.

    So we get a static, unchanging, integral, eternal universe, just like Grandfather Parmenides wanted.

  2. Must not. Physical theory requires from scientists not only high-quality experiments, adequate mathematics, but also modern philosophy. Turning to Parmenides for help is like turning to Paracelsus or Avicenna for help in developing modern vaccines. But! Physicists can (and should!) take into account the works of philosophers of the recent past: K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, etc. These were very high-quality philosophical works that have not lost their relevance to this day. But even this is not enough: we need to move forward, develop a modern philosophy that meets the requirements of the time. It is necessary to clearly define the subject of philosophy, the objects of its study, the goal, the tasks (direct and inverse) of the means. Introduce a qualitative classification of philosophical phenomena, concepts and categories (at the level of C. Linnaeus), develop a clear “conceptual framework”. Finally, try to introduce a mathematical apparatus to philosophy (so far this is only a “qualitative” science). But most importantly, physicists must realize the need to involve professional philosophers in their work in order to learn the Truth together. Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion among physicists (and not only) is that philosophy is unnecessary. The result is depressing: physicists can turn matter into ” pure energy “( although energy is just a word), particles-both “waves”, before the “Big Bang of the Universe” there was a time when there was no time, the Sun “feeds” on the energy of “time” (although time is just a reflection of the movement of matter in space), etc. etc. No matter what physicists say, physics cannot do without a qualitative philosophy. Well, let Parmenides rest, he has done a lot in his time. I guess I'm wrong. Let a more competent author make a more convincing argument. God help him. With respect to the author of the question and to the authors of comments, philosophy lover, Evgeny Kashtanov

  3. The main problem is that the modern physical theory, being falsifiable, involves a huge number of man-hours of work and a huge amount of money spent on experiments. As soon as you try to abandon it in order to create something fundamentally new, you find yourself in a situation where you need to dig a hole overnight with one shovel that the entire division has been digging for a year. But, most importantly, dig a new one, even more!

  4. Parmenides ' philosophical views, as stated in Wikipedia, are valid and not brought to a decision. For example, his thesis “Being is, but non-being is not” did not receive an elementary proof, which consists in the absence of a transition point from non-being to being. It is very strange to observe the impotence of thought at its triumph

  5. Must not.

    A theory in science is something that can be tested experimentally. Experiment distinguishes science from philosophy, and it was with the advent of experiment that physics separated from philosophy.

  6. Again and again. Someone once dropped the word, and everyone interprets it in their own way, and not only contemporaries and students of the philosopher, but also modernity is trying to contribute to the vision of the world by a philosopher who lived more than two thousand years ago.�

    The writings of Parmenides are preserved in very small numbers and mostly in fragments. It is impossible to get a complete picture of his true philosophical views from them.�

    The traditional interpretation of Parmenides ' works is that he allegedly claimed that the perception of the reality of the physical world (as described in the doxa) is erroneous and that the reality of the world is “One Being” (as described in the aletheia): an immutable, immaculate, unbreakable whole. Parmenides presented a contrasting but more conventional view of the world, thus becoming an early indicator of the duality of appearance and reality. For him and his students, the phenomena of movement and change are simply manifestations of an unchanging, eternal reality.�

    This interpretation of the philosopher's views, as some scientists admit, is based on erroneous translations of fragments of the philosopher's works. For example, it is not entirely clear whether Parmenides refuted what we call perception. The verb noein, often used by Parmenides, is better translated as “to know” rather than “to think.” Also, it is hard to believe that “being” is only in our heads, according to Parmenides.

  7. “Physical”, that is, corresponding to modern scientific ideas about the nature and origin of life and the universe? This is unlikely. His theses reject knowledge based on TOR and quantum mechanics. A philosophical system can be constructed (for example, my theory of the world), but it will be unsubstantiated, purely speculative, its main criteria (Being, Non-Being) are outside the knowledge system of science.

Leave a Reply