Moral Compass

[Immanuel Can]

There is still much to learn about physics and the universe.

Obviously, about many things. None of us knows currently even a small fraction of 1% of what we could know.

So it never makes any sense for a person to conclude, "We just can't know X," unless X is something for which there is definitely no possibility of knowledge becoming possible. And how many matters are there that are that clear?

Yes, and I didn't say that we can't know how the universe came to be, or what it's future is, I just said we can't know right now, because we simply don't have the necessary information available to us at present.

And it depends on who "we" is understood to be. It's certainly not the case that if one person or another doesn't know something, nobody can.

[Harbal]

Obviously, about many things. None of us knows currently even a small fraction of 1% of what we could know.

So it never makes any sense for a person to conclude, "We just can't know X," unless X is something for which there is definitely no possibility of knowledge becoming possible. And how many matters are there that are that clear?

Yes, and I didn't say that we can't know how the universe came to be, or what it's future is, I just said we can't know right now, because we simply don't have the necessary information available to us at present.

And it depends on who "we" is understood to be. It's certainly not the case that if one person or another doesn't know something, nobody can.

And it's certainly not always the case that when somebody can't know something, it deters them from claiming they do know it.

I certainly have no idea how the universe came to be here, or whether it is eternal or not. Are you saying that there might be someone who actually knows those things, or that the information that would enable them to know those things is available now?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, and I didn't say that we can't know how the universe came to be, or what it's future is, I just said we can't know right now, because we simply don't have the necessary information available to us at present.

And it depends on who "we" is understood to be. It's certainly not the case that if one person or another doesn't know something, nobody can.

And it's certainly not always the case that when somebody can't know something, it deters them from claiming they do know it.

Indeed so.

Whether they can or can't remains to be shown by the person claiming they can't.

I certainly have no idea how the universe came to be here, or whether it is eternal or not.

But you don't know nothing about it. Don't be too, too modest.

One thing you know is that the universe is not eternal. And you know that because of entropy (unless you don't know what entropy is, which is possible too, but I think you've got it). So the universe is a finite thing. And now you know something else: it had a beginning. You know that because all finite things do. And then, you also know it had a cause; because everything that begins has to have some cause why it begins.

So now you know that something caused the universe to exist. You might say you still don't know what that thing was, but maybe you can do some further deductions....I'm certain we can.

With me still?

[Harbal]

And it depends on who "we" is understood to be. It's certainly not the case that if one person or another doesn't know something, nobody can.

And it's certainly not always the case that when somebody can't know something, it deters them from claiming they do know it.

Indeed so.

Whether they can or can't remains to be shown by the person claiming they can't.

I certainly have no idea how the universe came to be here, or whether it is eternal or not.

But you don't know nothing about it. Don't be too, too modest.

One thing you know is that the universe is not eternal. And you know that because of entropy (unless you don't know what entropy is, which is possible too, but I think you've got it). So the universe is a finite thing. And now you know something else: it had a beginning. You know that because all finite things do. And then, you also know it had a cause; because everything that begins has to have some cause why it begins.

No, I don't know any of those things. They are just deductions, and there could be something that we don't know about that could render any of them false. I'm going to play it safe and carry on not knowing. After all, I don't actually need to know, and I don't have an overwhelming desire to know.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's certainly not always the case that when somebody can't know something, it deters them from claiming they do know it.

Indeed so.

Whether they can or can't remains to be shown by the person claiming they can't.

I certainly have no idea how the universe came to be here, or whether it is eternal or not.

But you don't know nothing about it. Don't be too, too modest.

One thing you know is that the universe is not eternal. And you know that because of entropy (unless you don't know what entropy is, which is possible too, but I think you've got it). So the universe is a finite thing. And now you know something else: it had a beginning. You know that because all finite things do. And then, you also know it had a cause; because everything that begins has to have some cause why it begins.

No, I don't know any of those things. They are just deductions,...

"Just"?

The thing about deductions is this: if the premises are true and the deduction proposed properly formed, then they're 100% sure to be right. That's a pretty good deal, when it comes to talking about what we can "know."

I'm going to play it safe and carry on not knowing.

That would be to misunderstand what a deduction is, and to guarantee yourself to be wrong. Why would one choose that?

Maybe because, as I said earlier, one preferred to keep going thinking what one always had, rather than challenging one's own preconceptions. You asked why people would ever do that...now you know, I guess.

After all, I don't actually need to know, and I don't have an overwhelming desire to know.

Those are quite different proposals. Now you're no longer talking about things you cannot know, but things you should know, and have every reason to know, and maybe on some level you secretly do know, but are deliberately keeping yourself from accepting.

However, even in a human court of law, "I decided to keep myself ignorant" isn't actually a defense against responsibility. It is, in fact, a case of what's called "negligence." In the court of greater things, I suggest it's no different.

[Harbal]

Indeed so.

Whether they can or can't remains to be shown by the person claiming they can't.


But you don't know nothing about it. Don't be too, too modest.

One thing you know is that the universe is not eternal. And you know that because of entropy (unless you don't know what entropy is, which is possible too, but I think you've got it). So the universe is a finite thing. And now you know something else: it had a beginning. You know that because all finite things do. And then, you also know it had a cause; because everything that begins has to have some cause why it begins.

No, I don't know any of those things. They are just deductions,...

"Just"?

The thing about deductions is this: if the premises are true and the deduction proposed properly formed, then they're 100% sure to be right. That's a pretty good deal, when it comes to talking about what we can "know."

I'm going to play it safe and carry on not knowing.

That would be to misunderstand what a deduction is, and to guarantee yourself to be wrong. Why would one choose that?

Maybe because, as I said earlier, one preferred to keep going thinking what one always had, rather than challenging one's own preconceptions. You asked why people would ever do that...now you know, I guess.

After all, I don't actually need to know, and I don't have an overwhelming desire to know.

Those are quite different proposals. Now you're no longer talking about things you cannot know, but things you should know, and have every reason to know, and maybe on some level you secretly do know, but are deliberately keeping yourself from accepting.

However, even in a human court of law, "I decided to keep myself ignorant" isn't actually a defense against responsibility. It is, in fact, a case of what's called "negligence." In the court of greater things, I suggest it's no different.

Thanks, IC, but I only popped in to contribute my little bit of wisdom. My work here is done.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I don't know any of those things. They are just deductions,...

"Just"?

The thing about deductions is this: if the premises are true and the deduction proposed properly formed, then they're 100% sure to be right. That's a pretty good deal, when it comes to talking about what we can "know."

I'm going to play it safe and carry on not knowing.

That would be to misunderstand what a deduction is, and to guarantee yourself to be wrong. Why would one choose that?

Maybe because, as I said earlier, one preferred to keep going thinking what one always had, rather than challenging one's own preconceptions. You asked why people would ever do that...now you know, I guess.

After all, I don't actually need to know, and I don't have an overwhelming desire to know.

Those are quite different proposals. Now you're no longer talking about things you cannot know, but things you should know, and have every reason to know, and maybe on some level you secretly do know, but are deliberately keeping yourself from accepting.

However, even in a human court of law, "I decided to keep myself ignorant" isn't actually a defense against responsibility. It is, in fact, a case of what's called "negligence." In the court of greater things, I suggest it's no different.

Thanks, IC, but I only popped in to contribute my little bit of wisdom. My work here is done.

I get it. I've seen it many, many times. When the deductive "walls" start pointing in the unwanted direction, the player picks up his ball and says, "That's it for me, lads...mom's holding supper," and leaves the field.

[Harbal]

"Just"?

The thing about deductions is this: if the premises are true and the deduction proposed properly formed, then they're 100% sure to be right. That's a pretty good deal, when it comes to talking about what we can "know."


That would be to misunderstand what a deduction is, and to guarantee yourself to be wrong. Why would one choose that?

Maybe because, as I said earlier, one preferred to keep going thinking what one always had, rather than challenging one's own preconceptions. You asked why people would ever do that...now you know, I guess.


Those are quite different proposals. Now you're no longer talking about things you cannot know, but things you should know, and have every reason to know, and maybe on some level you secretly do know, but are deliberately keeping yourself from accepting.

However, even in a human court of law, "I decided to keep myself ignorant" isn't actually a defense against responsibility. It is, in fact, a case of what's called "negligence." In the court of greater things, I suggest it's no different.

Thanks, IC, but I only popped in to contribute my little bit of wisdom. My work here is done.

I get it. I've seen it many, many times. When the deductive "walls" start pointing in the unwanted direction, the player picks up his ball and says, "That's it for me, lads...mom's holding supper," and leaves the field.

I knew you'd understand.

[Immanuel Can]

I knew you'd understand.

All good.

[Janoah]

I'm glad to have helped.

Okay, now next question,
is he God who is followed by matter?

Could you put that in Standard English, or in more explicit terms, so I can understand your question?

Do you agree that matter follows God?

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, now next question,
is he God who is followed by matter?

Could you put that in Standard English, or in more explicit terms, so I can understand your question?

Do you agree that matter follows God?

"Follows"? In what sense does matter "follow" anything? I still can't understand what you're asking.

[Janoah]

Could you put that in Standard English, or in more explicit terms, so I can understand your question?

Do you agree that matter follows God?

"Follows"? In what sense does matter "follow" anything? I still can't understand what you're asking.

"Follows" - in the sense of obeying.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you agree that matter follows God?

"Follows"? In what sense does matter "follow" anything? I still can't understand what you're asking.

"Follows" - in the sense of obeying.

So your question is "does matter obey God"? In what sense "obey"? As in God speaks, and matter can be rearranged accordingly, as at the Red Sea? Or in the sense of matter being spoken into existence ex nihilo? Or are you trying to be a Determinist, and say that if matter moves it can only move because God made in move, not because people did, or because it was allowed to respond to natural forces like an earthquake?

I can't get the sense of your word "obey" any better than I can get "follows" to mean something clear.

[Janoah]

"Follows"? In what sense does matter "follow" anything? I still can't understand what you're asking.

"Follows" - in the sense of obeying.

So your question is "does matter obey God"? In what sense "obey"?

"obey" in the sense as You understand it.

[Immanuel Can]

"Follows" - in the sense of obeying.

So your question is "does matter obey God"? In what sense "obey"?

"obey" in the sense as You understand it.

I don't understand YOUR usage. And I can't make it up for you. You're going to have to say what you mean, because nobody else can. And until they know what you mean, how can they tell you whether or not they agree with your statement?