One for the loons.

[Skepdick]

Justified true belief is just a variation of the trillema.

Justified= definition continuum
True= circular
Belief= assumed axioms

Unless you do everything in reverse. Start with some theorems, then look for some axioms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

If you view this from an epistemological lens, mathematics is foundationalism, reverse mathematics is coherentism.

[Age]

Another point that could be made is that if, and when, some one says that they know the Universe is expanding, and/or began, when there is NO actual evidence for this, then some might say that that one is also very loony.

Well yeah, if there were no evidence, it would be an idiosyncratic claim, but even though there is a ton of evidence, few physicists will rule out any tiny possibility that all the different indicators could be accounted for some other way.

But there is NOT any actual evidence for either.

There is NO actual evidence for what is beyond what is observed. So, no human being knows the size of the Universe to make the claim that It is expanding. There is NO actual evidence prior to some bang. So, no one knows if the Universe began or not. So, there is NO actual evidence either way.

Making the claim that there is a ton of evidence is idiotic. If there was evidence, then there is nothing to rule out, OBVIOUSLY.

Making the claim that there is evidence for some thing, but then the "evidence" might account for some thing else and that the thing might not actually be true, is self-refuting.

If any person wants to have a honest and open discussion about what "evidence" there is, without maintaining the BELIEF that that "evidence" absolutely proves and supports that the Universe IS expanding and that the Universe DID begin, then I am more than willing to proceed. Unfortunately though it is very rare in these forums to find such people.

Also, it could be also be said that for someone to reject outright that that there is no God, that the Universe is not non-dual, et cetera, is plain stupid. But some people really do believe that they know things, which they obviously do not.

Think yer tripping yourself up with too many negatives there Age;

I do not see it. If you think I "tripped up", then are you able to provide any example? Just saying some thing does not mean that it exists.

You made a claim that only if people believe one side of some thing, then they are loony. I was just showing the Truth of things.

but yeah, the general point is that people who think they have some proof that god exists or that it doesn't for example, are loonies.

Showing the proof either way is the easy and simple part. Getting you human beings to come up with an agreed upon definition is the hardest part.

See the real lunacy is in the talking about if some thing exists or not when the people in the discussion do not even know what the 'thing' is that they are talking about.

When a person provides a clear cut definition for what 'God' IS, for example, then providing proof of whether 'It' exists or not is a very simple and easy task to do.

The general point you made here about people who are loonies also applies to those people who think that they have some proof that the Universe IS expanding and DID begin as well.

The point about whether these people actually have a definitive definition for the word 'Universe' could also come into play here.

[Skepdick]

Getting you human beings to come up with an agreed upon definition is the hardest part.

Well, can we start somewhere? Could you define "definition" for us?

[uwot]

I know you wrote a book. I read it and looked at the pictures. I gained a lot of knowledge from it. I published on these forums a truly meant admiring criticism of your book..

I know you did, and if I sounded ungrateful, I apologise; I really appreciated it.

Mine still needs to be printed.

Best wishes for that, getting a publisher is hard work, but you can always publish it on Amazon.

[Age]

Getting you human beings to come up with an agreed upon definition is the hardest part.

Well, can we start somewhere? Could you define "definition" for us?

Yes and yes.

But why?

What Is the purpose to do so?

It was clear what I was referring to.

You have said that the saying; "I know that I don't know anything", sums up ALL of Philosophy.

I asked you; If that sums up all of philosophy, to you, then what is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

I was just trying to better understand your perspective of things, which you claim are true. But you did not even have the decency to clarify what you yourself actually say and mean.

[Skepdick]

Could you define "definition" for us?

Yes.

Well, that's no definition of 'definition' I've ever encountered before. It's a difficult to understand what you mean.

Could you define 'yes'?

That would clarify things.

But you did not even have the decency to clarify what you yourself actually say and mean.

How could I ever clarify anything to you when you don't even know what 'definition' means?

[-1-]

I know you wrote a book. I read it and looked at the pictures. I gained a lot of knowledge from it. I published on these forums a truly meant admiring criticism of your book..

I know you did, and if I sounded ungrateful, I apologise; I really appreciated it.

Mine still needs to be printed.

Best wishes for that, getting a publisher is hard work, but you can always publish it on Amazon.

I gave up on getting a publisher. I established my own publishing company, and I farm out the printing of the pages. The book already has about four versions of it in the Library and Archives of Canada. I still do the binding, and the marketing myself. The first of which is fun, the second, non-existent. Mine is not a genre book. I'd like to call it literary fiction, which bores most people to death. But that's what I write. When life makes you write lemons, sell lemons.

Maybe I should farm the marketing out to my girlfriend, who is a wife-strength girl for me, and she is excellent at selling. As I am often wont of saying, she could sell styrofoam packing pellets to Eskimoes. She helps out a friend to sell house contents, and they make out like a bandit. You wouldn't believe the incredible amount of useless shit she sluffs off on people who go to these sales.

I actually figured out how she does it. She made me swear I'll never tell anyone, after I revealed my observations to her. And though I figured out the theory, I still could not do it. I am not cut out for sales.

I had the book on Amazon along with a book of poetry for a while, and there were two sales over a six-month period, after which I lost my password, and god only knows what is happening to that account now. I had no reviews, except for the poetry book, which someone at a book show who bought my book of poetry wrote. She gave me a daring three star rating. I believe, and she knows I believe, she has overrated me. If T.S. Elliott is a five star, then mine is at most a 0.00546 star.

I saw no money, of course, of the sales, as they were A. Electronic sales of electronically read books and B. I never hit the minimum sales figure after which Amazon gives a damn. I mean, of which Amazon shares out profits.

[uwot]

Another point that could be made is that if, and when, some one says that they know the Universe is expanding, and/or began, when there is NO actual evidence for this, then some might say that that one is also very loony.

Well yeah, if there were no evidence, it would be an idiosyncratic claim, but even though there is a ton of evidence, few physicists will rule out any tiny possibility that all the different indicators could be accounted for some other way.

But there is NOT any actual evidence for either.

Well, there's the observed red shift, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse for starters.

There is NO actual evidence for what is beyond what is observed.

Well no; the evidence just is what you observe. It's up to you how you interpret it.

The general point you made here about people who are loonies also applies to those people who think that they have some proof that the Universe IS expanding and DID begin as well.

Think yer musta missed this bit:

First rule of philosophy: nobody else knows anything...

Second rule of philosophy: you don't know anything for certain either.

[Age]

Could you define "definition" for us?

Yes.

Well, that's no definition of 'definition' I've ever encountered before. It's a difficult to understand what you mean.

I OBVIOUSLY did not give a definition. I, instead, just answered the actual question you asked, obviously. Could you not comprehend this?

If it is difficult for you to understand the word 'yes', then so be it. That might explain why you see so many things are to complicated and to hard for you to understand.

Could you define 'yes'?

Yes.

That would clarify things.

What exactly would it clarify for 'you'?

But you did not even have the decency to clarify what you yourself actually say and mean.

How could I ever clarify anything to you when you don't even know what 'definition' means?

By just answering my clarifying questions. Life really is that simple.

Why did you assume that 'I' do not know what the word 'definition' means?

Also, that has absolutely no bearing on your being completely unable to clear up what you, yourself, say and mean.

[Skepdick]

I OBVIOUSLY did not give a definition. I, instead, just answered the actual question you asked, obviously. Could you not comprehend this?

Could you define 'yes'?

Yes.

Ah, I see so it's just a mis-understanding. OK, my bad. Let me try again...

Please give us definitions for 'definition' and 'yes'.

OBVIOUSLY this request should be clear to you. Since I am writing it in your language.

[PTH]

Generally philosophers take the same pragmatic view as you, and get slagged off as post-modernists for their pains.

I suspect (leaving aside nutters) the reason people keep coming back to the topic is because we seem to have quite an amount of working knowledge. If the foundations were actually as weak as they seem, you'd expect reality to change in strange and unpredictable ways - and I don't just mean the election of Boris Johnson as UK PM.

We run quite complex societies, with lots of co-operating elements. I think its in one of Jared Diamond's books were he invites folk to appreciate how orderly the world has become; you can travel to a distant land, and the locals won't immediately react to you by throwing spears at you - which is likely what they should have done a few hundred thousand years ago.

And, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".

But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.

[-1-]

Well yeah, if there were no evidence, it would be an idiosyncratic claim, but even though there is a ton of evidence, few physicists will rule out any tiny possibility that all the different indicators could be accounted for some other way.

But there is NOT any actual evidence for either.

Well, there's the observed red shift, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse for starters.

There is NO actual evidence for what is beyond what is observed.

Well no; the evidence just is what you observe. It's up to you how you interpret it.

The general point you made here about people who are loonies also applies to those people who think that they have some proof that the Universe IS expanding and DID begin as well.

Think yer musta missed this bit:

First rule of philosophy: nobody else knows anything...

Second rule of philosophy: you don't know anything for certain either.

Uwot, you are still conversing with @"age". I am telling you, throwing aruments at him is like throwing a rubber ball against a brick wall: both just bounce back without any effect of any kind on the bouncing surface.

[uwot]

Uwot, you are still conversing with @"age". I am telling you, throwing aruments at him is like throwing a rubber ball against a brick wall: both just bounce back without any effect of any kind on the bouncing surface.

I'm under no illusions, but if ya create a thread called 'One for the loons' don't be surprised if they turn up.

[-1-]

Uwot, you are still conversing with @"age". I am telling you, throwing aruments at him is like throwing a rubber ball against a brick wall: both just bounce back without any effect of any kind on the bouncing surface.

I'm under no illusions, but if ya create a thread called 'One for the loons' don't be surprised if they turn up.

Oh, poo.

I turned up, didn't I.

[Age]

Well yeah, if there were no evidence, it would be an idiosyncratic claim, but even though there is a ton of evidence, few physicists will rule out any tiny possibility that all the different indicators could be accounted for some other way.

But there is NOT any actual evidence for either.

Well, there's the observed red shift, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse for starters.

As can already be noticed I have replied to these before, when they were pointed out previously. You were not open enough to counter them nor refue my replies. You appear to just dismiss my views entirely. This may be due to your views and beliefs if me.

The observed red shift:
The observance of red shift is assumed to explain expansion.

The observance of red shift is not evidence of expansion.

The observance of red shift can be explained, without it necessarily meaning expansion.

The observance of blue shift also exists, which obviously contradicts expansion. IF the observance of red shift is meant to be evidence for, and an explanation for, expansion, then blue shift would/should be evidence for contraction.

But there could just be another very simple and easily understood reason why both exist. I say 'could be'bexause explanations and evidence depends on what a person already believes and assumes is true.

The observed cosmic microwave background radiation:
This is meant to be evidence for, and an explanation for, some bang. But, no matter how big a bang is, which there is no disputing they could happen, that is not evidence of a beginning.

Microwave radiation, in the background, on a cosmic scale/level, relative to the human being position, scale, and level is just an explanation that there was a bang, of some size.

An explanation that a bang of any size did occur is absolutely not any evidence for a beginning.

The fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse.
The fact that not all things are collapsing in on themselves is certainly not any evidence that the Universe is therefore expanding.

The fact that some objects on the cosmological scale are moving closer together could be said to be evidence that the Universe is not expanding, but that would not suffice as evidence either way also.

The reason why some things are actually moving closer together while others are actually moving away from each other can be very easily and simply explained.

Magnetism, bangs, and gravity working together create the Universe, the way it is.

There is NO actual evidence for what is beyond what is observed.

Well no; the evidence just is what you observe. It's up to you how you interpret it.

Exactly, and to make the interpreted leap to the Universe IS expanding and the Universe DID begin is a huge conclusion to jump to, especially considering there is NO actual evidence for either.

To conclude either or both is done by just making assumptions, which are based solely upon one's own past experiences.

Just because some thing is called "evidence" that does not mean that it is.

The general point you made here about people who are loonies also applies to those people who think that they have some proof that the Universe IS expanding and DID begin as well.

Think yer musta missed this bit:

First rule of philosophy: nobody else knows anything...

To me, there are NO rules of 'philosophy'.

You may have missed the lesson on: Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

And, what you observe a word to mean is NOT necessarily how "others" observe it to mean.

If no body knows any thing, then implying that there is actual evidence that the Universe is getting bigger some may confer is very misleading and deceitful.

Second rule of philosophy: you don't know anything for certain either.

There are NO rules of 'philosophy'. But this is like EVERY thing else, this is solely dependent upon how one is observing the word 'philosphy' and defining it.

But anyway, and contrary to your belief, there is some thing that I know for certain.