Philosophy undermines truth

[Skepdick]

Confirmation of time dilation.

Whether the experiment confirmed "time dilation" or "clock slowdown" depends very much on what you think time is.

In GR all clocks (and therefore time) are inside the system.
In QFT all clocks (and therefore time) are outside the system.

[Wizard22]

One cannot doubt that one is doubting, hence why: cogito ergo sum.

Descartes was attempting to rationalize a logical truth as to the existence of God, or Existence in general. Consciousness means that a 'thinking-thing' must exist. So at least there is a rational, logical principle, by which to deduce all other prepositions from. This does not mean to say anything further about existence, except by which the 'thinking-thing' can logically deduce and rationalize the existence of other things. What this leads to is Self-Awareness and Self-Consciousness. External consciousness of 'other things' is not enough to deduce the existence of God, or Existence in general.

This was later added upon by Kant's A Priori analytic reasoning, and the "thing-in-itself", as further logical-rationalizations or 'proofs' as to the existence of things.

[Will Bouwman]

Why does this entity we call God require FAITH, rather than make itself fully aware to all?

I think I know the reason.

What do you think the reason might be?

I really don't know. Most of the answers I have seen are along the lines that people who have unquestioning faith will be rewarded handsomely. Which sounds great, but on the downside, those who don't accept what is only one possible explanation for life, the universe and everything will be tortured hideously. I gather God hasn't even waited for you to die to start on you. What a bastard.

[Skepdick]

One cannot doubt that one is doubting, hence why: cogito ergo sum.

Certainly you can't doubt that you are doubting; but you can doubt whether you are doubting enough.

Descartes didn't doubt enough.

I am. Whether I am think or not.

[Will Bouwman]

Confirmation of time dilation.

Whether the experiment confirmed "time dilation" or "clock slowdown" depends very much on what you think time is.

In GR all clocks (and therefore time) are inside the system.
In QFT all clocks (and therefore time) are outside the system.

I think "clocks (and therefore time)" probably sums it up. Time is only things that happen.

[Will Bouwman]

Descartes didn't doubt enough.

I am. Whether I am think or not.

Surely that implies that Descartes doubted too much.

[Skepdick]

I think "clocks (and therefore time)" probably sums it up. Time is only things that happen.

Well, you know. There's such a thing as order of events and the concept of time came way before we invented clocks; so "clocks therefore time" is as confused as Descartes.

[Skepdick]

Surely that implies that Descartes doubted too much.

Does it? He certainly didn't doubt his premise. Cogito.

Think -> Am
not Think -> Still am

[Will Bouwman]

I think "clocks (and therefore time)" probably sums it up. Time is only things that happen.

Well, you know. There's such a thing as order of events and the concept of time came way before we invented clocks.

I presume you are confining 'clocks' to mechanical clocks. Yes the concept of time is much older than those. No one knows when or how we started counting days as a species, or how we counted them, but there have been various devices from the beginning of recorded history that have divided days into parts.

[Skepdick]

I think "clocks (and therefore time)" probably sums it up. Time is only things that happen.

Well, you know. There's such a thing as order of events and the concept of time came way before we invented clocks.

I presume you are confining 'clocks' to mechanical clocks. Yes the concept of time is much older than those. No one knows when or how we started counting days as a species, or how we counted them, but there have been various devices from the beginning of recorded history that have divided days into parts.

I am thinking counting isn't necessary for time. It's only necessary for ticking clocks.

Just knowing which event comes before; which comes after and which happened simultaneously suffices for time.

[Will Bouwman]

Surely that implies that Descartes doubted too much.

Does it? He certainly didn't doubt his premise. Cogito.

I'll say it again:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Unless you think the thought you have of you is you, you don't have to exist in order for there to be a thought of you.

[Skepdick]

Surely that implies that Descartes doubted too much.

Does it? He certainly didn't doubt his premise. Cogito.

I'll say it again:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Unless you think the thought you have of you is you, you don't have to exist in order for there to be a thought of you.

I heard you the first time. Not sure how it's relevant to deciding whether Descarted doubted too much or not enough.

[Will Bouwman]

I'll say it again:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Unless you think the thought you have of you is you, you don't have to exist in order for there to be a thought of you.

I heard you the first time. Not sure how it's relevant to deciding whether Descarted doubted too much or not enough.

Too much in your view; not enough in mine.

[Iwannaplato]

You say:

...it took a long time to find out about number three. The empirical aspects took work and technology to get to.

It didn't take all that long to confirm some predictions of warped spacetime.

True, but I wasn't focused on that interval. It took a long time to get to the math and insights that even brought the concept of space time, the way Einstein thought of it, into anyone's head. We had wells and even bricks for a long time before this. And before that we had crevices and holes we could drop stones in.

some are persuaded that creating matter from x, y, z and t seems implausible and that, actually quantum fields can also describe some substance. The Large Hadron Collider is supposed to have hit the Higgs field hard enough to create Higgs bosons. The energy needed to hit spacetime hard enough to create particles (gravitons) would take a collider so vast that some estimates say its mass would collapse into a black hole. Long story short, we are some way off confirming whether spacetime is a substance.

Whatever the bolded means. It will likely means something different from what the presocratics meant when they were competing to label the base substance. I think the word substance is useful in some circumstances. But if we take an idea like physical and what it meant originally and now look and see that includes massless particles magnetic fields, particles in superposition, particles that are also waves, neutrinoes passing through out bodies by the billions without, nearly ever, impacting anything, the word has broadened its meaning. Some medieval theologian might say, oh, you include stuff including those qualities or perhaps better put lacking those qualities in the category material/physical, ok, maybe angels are physical.

There's also the trend issue. IOW it seems like whatever is found by physicalists, is called physical, regardless of characteristics. But we call it a substance. I'm not saying 'it's' not a substance, I am just not sure the category has any meaning any more beyond 'we consider it confirmed as real.'

That's where my sense of skepticism around substance comes in. I don't think we need to commit to monism or dualism or physicalism and so on, thought it may be useful thinking to do so in certain contexts. I certainly think like a dualist a lot of the time. Sometimes like a monist. Etc.

Again the god of the example is a simplified version, chosen to make a point - if an almighty god doesn't want to be seen, we're not going to see him. So:

IOW it still sounds like you are prescribing which ideas are meaningful - you are asserting they are meaningful in the sense that people give them meaning/emotional auras, but it seems like not in the sense of having anything to do with reality or any reality we will ever know.

I'm not even prescribing a meaning to meaning. If people find the existence of an invisible god meaningful, that is entirely their prerogative.

I wasn't interpreting you as trying to stop people believing things. We went from your first categorization around God existing or not to an idiosyncratic version of an Abrahamic God, despite Abrahamic versions of deities not just hiding, IOW it seems like you know what can be known, including what we will be able to know. So, you can divvy up taste and potentially testable. I got the impression from your earlier posts that you knew where we can place posited entities. Like you know X goes In the box where, hey that's a taste thing and always will be and also independent of the experiences different people have, and hey, that's a we can work that out some day thing. I mention people with different experiences because there are things, like rogue waves for a now fairly non-controversial example - where some people were rational to believe in something they could not demonstrate to the expert community (who also at the time were rational to be skeptical, though perhaps not fully rational in how they dismissed given their experiences. We don't know what else falls into that category, I think.

[attofishpi]

Why does this entity we call God require FAITH, rather than make itself fully aware to all?

I think I know the reason.

What do you think the reason might be?

I really don't know. Most of the answers I have seen are along the lines that people who have unquestioning faith will be rewarded handsomely. Which sounds great, but on the downside, those who don't accept what is only one possible explanation for life, the universe and everything will be tortured hideously. I gather God hasn't even waited for you to die to start on you. What a bastard.

Aha what a bastard God is. Its wrath mmm, I could never have hated an entity more. But still - it had its reasons..and who am I to question?

The most rational reason I can come to is that none of us have any more reason for being a human, than all the animals around us have for being animals, reptiles etc...

In other words, this God truly is a rather grim reaper where it comes to karmic incarnation into the future..of where our soul or 'being' continues.

When I watch true stories of what humans do to other humans -utube- for a little bit of money including burying an old couple alive (a couple that assisted one of the perpetrators since they were a child in need)...

Ya, best know the wrath of God...it often simply states to me "DNA" when I consider such accounts.

So.

I think IC had at least one important point that has some justification - that people DON'T consider there is a God knowing ALL. Humans short of this think that beyond any human camera all that remains of "justice" is human....when they commit such heinous acts (well, God ain't such love...they are reassigned as animals - 666 at best)

I'm sick of it mate. Sick of hearing of the violence against innocent women and children - and men.

THEY ALL GET GOD's JUSTICE - not just man's justice (pathetic).

We have ALL been warned about God - there is no excuse for anyone on this planet - atheist\theist - matters not.