Scientific Method and God

[TimeSeeker]

Dear Time-Seeker, Are you a new manifest of any of these users:
Averro
BillWilltrack
JohnDoe7
ImmanuelCan?

If yes, please let me know. Please forgive me, spelling of names in the list is at times only approximate.

So instead of stating your criteria/standards against which you are holding me to account you are going to deflect, huh?

Ok

I have no clue who/what those are.

I think I am developing a reliable litmus tear for a “philosopher”. Lack of transparency.

[-1-]

I have no clue who/what those are.

Fair enough. I still deem you to be disruptive, illogical, nonsensical, furthermore belligerent and nefarious.

From soon onward you are on my "iggie" list.

[TimeSeeker]

I have no clue who/what those are.

Fair enough. I still deem you to be disruptive, illogical, nonsensical, furthermore belligerent and nefarious.

From soon onward you are on my "iggie" list.

Seee! Another opaque distinction! Logical vs illogical.

Whic logic are YOU using?!? There are hundreds of logics and all of them have different grammars. Different cardinal

Can you demonstrate some transparency please???

You are damn right I am disruptive. I have very low tolerance for bullshit. Particularly from people who claim to seek “truth”!

I am practically convinced that philosophers are the 21st century theists!

[Walker]

Consider that:

A circle is an elemental shape.
A square is an elemental shape.
The name square-circle suggests a compound of the two elements, like water is a compound of two elements.

Because compounds need not resemble their constituent elements, folks may be looking at square-circles all the time and have not yet labeled them as such.

However, because not all things are known (which is supported by all the new things being discovered), recognizable aspects of the constituent elements may be evident in the square-circle compound, once currently unknown conditions make its discovery possible, and repeatable. For instance, we can tell by observation that a square has some points of maximum separation on its boundary (two points from each other), while a circle has many more points of maximum separation, even though a point is dimensionless.

Equivocation. Plus "elemental shape" is poetic, nothing to do with science or philosophy. With art, maybe.

An elemental shape is a basic shape.

Trigonometry studies basic shapes.

Does trigonometry have more to do with science, or poetry, or philosophy?

[TimeSeeker]

Consider that:

A circle is an elemental shape.
A square is an elemental shape.
The name square-circle suggests a compound of the two elements, like water is a compound of two elements.

Because compounds need not resemble their constituent elements, folks may be looking at square-circles all the time and have not yet labeled them as such.

However, because not all things are known (which is supported by all the new things being discovered), recognizable aspects of the constituent elements may be evident in the square-circle compound, once currently unknown conditions make its discovery possible, and repeatable. For instance, we can tell by observation that a square has some points of maximum separation on its boundary (two points from each other), while a circle has many more points of maximum separation, even though a point is dimensionless.

Equivocation. Plus "elemental shape" is poetic, nothing to do with science or philosophy. With art, maybe.

An elemental shape is a basic shape.

Trigonometry studies basic shapes.

Does trigonometry have more to do with science, or poetry, or philosophy?

All “elemental shapes” exist in Euclidian (2-dimensional) space?

How many dimensions does our universe have?

I don’t know, but it is more than two!

So if you can point me to a non-man-made square or circle object that would be great!

[Walker]

So if you can point me to a non-man-made square or circle object that would be great!

I explained all that in my posting, plain as day.

Equivocation is an inference triggered by truth’s inherent self-protection.

[TimeSeeker]

So if you can point me to a non-man-made square or circle object that would be great!

I explained all that in my posting, plain as day.

Equivocation is an inference triggered by truth’s inherent self-protection.

That is deep, Deepak.

Squares don’t exist. Except in a Platonistic form.

I will even provide a source from this very website: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

[Walker]

Well, it certainly isn't going to fit into what you know now, is it.

And, fuck you with Deepak crap.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.

And one perspective or context does not branch into another? If your argument is correct under one perspective or context, but is proven wrong by another....is it still correct?



I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.

One context exists relative to another. Take for example a culture. It may exist as one specific framework of coexistence between people, but it invariably leads to other cultures which branch off from it and effectively subroute it over time. Rome and it's relation to the barbarians is another example of this. Once a barbarian culture itself, it became civilized and in turn formed other barbarian cultures (Gaul, Celts, Germanics) which effectively over-threw Rome eventually.



Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'

That is the issue, is it not..."convention"...a "framework"?

Actually me joining or not joining is conducive to the circumstances.

If I do not need food and the old people need food...why would I join? If I joined it would be immoral.

However if I do need food and the old people need food...and there is plenty of food for both old and young, then the framework itself is corrupt.

Now these are questions of morality, so to speak with morality effectively being premised on the nature of proportion. Is one morally qualified to over-route a system, which in itself, is unjust in these respects.

Considering the foundation of "Old" and "Young" is the measuring limit of these systems, in these respects, these foundations provide the foundation to the moral structures themselves and thereby are viewed accordingly.

There you go again.
Note the comments by others on your views.
I am not continuing till I read something that make sense to the intended point.

Not the comments by others on your views....

You can't continue...I won the debate.

[TimeSeeker]

Well, it certainly isn't going to fit into what you know now, is it.

And, fuck you with Deepak crap.

I don’t know anything. So that would be a truism.

[Walker]

Well, don’t wait too long to discover knowing or the show will be over and you won’t know what happened.

[TimeSeeker]

Well, don’t wait too long to discover knowing or the show will be over and you won’t know what happened.

Well, humanity has been looking for knowledge for thousands of years. If you have already found it, don't be a dick about it and show it to us!

[Walker]

Quid pro quo: don’t hear through the eyes of a dick.

Here’s your example.

As far as we know, thousands of years ago humanity could not fly.

Manifested human flight did not exist.
Human flight only existed within infinite potentiality.
The proper conditions for manifested human flight were unknown.

Then, the proper conditions were discovered.

Human flight manifested from the formless realm of infinite potentiality resulting in knowledge of the required conditions for human flight. Flight manifested first, because flying is required for full knowledge of flying. Knowledge of the required conditions dribbled in scraps at a time.

This knowledge has been repeatedly verified by assembling the required elements to create the proper condition for flight, and then flying.

Human flight and every other unknown, even the unimaginable, is in the formless realm of infinite potentiality. A fraction of the undifferentiated will then manifest, and conditions determine the nature of the manifestation.

A good metaphor for this is dark matter, which purportedly makes up the bulk of the universe, while manifestations, or what is called physicality, is the smaller portion we can perceive.

[TimeSeeker]

So on a scale of knowledge-completeness from 0% to 100% where would you put flight?

[TimeSeeker]

So on a scale of knowledge-completeness from 0% to 100% where would you put flight?

Quid pro quo: don’t hear through the eyes of a dick.

People often mistake my instance on higher standards for "being a dick".

I keep using this demonstration (given the JTB definition for "knowledge"). Humanity may or may not go extinct in the next 10000000 years.

If that's knowledge - I will gladly trade you for toilet paper. I want prediction! A bounded confidence interval!

Humanity WILL NOT go extinct in the next 10000000 years! That's knowledge!

And since I insist on verificationism I guess there's only one way to answer the question, huh? Survive for 10000000 years while the universe is trying to kill us.

David vs Goliath.