Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:09 pm

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:01 pm i think we just need to be patient, keep at it steadily, and eventually it will fit. and our universe will appear consistent once again.

Maybe because we are little gods organizing what we can comprehend (or pretend to) into consistent bits that we can feel in control of? The "consistency" we perceive probably relies on ourselves as the "ordering agent". If something doesn't fit... if something seems magical (beyond our usual scope) on a grand scale... many of us will dismiss it, while others will claim to be the messengers/knowers of it... both approaches are ways of having/claiming order... and reducing it to our level of contrived understanding and definitions. Why does there NEED to be order on a grand scale according to us?

There does not have to be, according to us. There just IS perfect order on ALL scales.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:09 pmWhy can't there be random and moving efficiency within a vastness of disordered potential?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:22 am Just another example of WHY 'you' are here on this philosophy forum. That is; as I have been explaining, 'you' are TRYING your hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others". But it is just NOT working.

Yet more evidence that you have beliefs.

NAME the BELIEF, if you can, and LET US SEE if it really is a BELIEF or not.

If that is NOT what you are doing, then I am completely OPEN to SEEING that. SHOW that you are NOT doing the above. Explain what you mean when you write such things, as I pointed out.

If one expresses that their own job is ahead of academia by a few decades, then if that is NOT trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others", then what is it?

If one expresses that the academia from the institution that they have enrolled in offers absolutely no new insights for them, and really the institution, itself, should be paying them for their insights, then if that is NOT trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others", then what is that one actually portraying?

You have already admitted that what you have expressed here is NOT true, so what is that you are really TRYING TO portray?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:25 am NAME the BELIEF, if you can, and LET US SEE if it really is a BELIEF or not.

You believe that you have knowledge.

But you are just munching on crayons.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:25 am If one expresses that their own job is ahead of academia by a few decades, then if that is NOT trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others", then what is it?

It is something OTHER than "trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority".

You BELIEVE that i am trying to portray a sense of intellectual superiority.

It's called a Type I error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_an ... pe_I_error

If you had any knowledge you would know that.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:55 am This is about YOUR weakest attempt at continuing to NOT provide any evidence at all so far.

You have to provide at least ONE shred of evidence before you could accurately claim that you can not afford to give ANY evidence.

So, when will you provide at least some evidence for what you allege and make accusations of?

And, if you are going to portray that you have already provided some "evidence", then direct us to it, so that we can at least take a look at it. Otherwise, some might assume that really you have never provided any evidence at all.

Further evidence that you have beliefs.

This alluding to some thing is about all you seem to be able to to now. NOT once do you answer the questions I put forward to you. Nor do you comment on what I write. You just make accusations and allegations without EVER providing ANY examples nor evidence for.

POINT OUT the EVIDENCE if there is ANY.

I can NOT see any evidence for what you allege. If you can NOT and will NOT point out nor show any thing, then some WILL be wondering WHY?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am This alluding to some thing is about all you seem to be able to to now. NOT once do you answer the questions I put forward to you.

Because you ask stupid questions.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am Nor do you comment on what I write. You just make accusations and allegations without EVER providing ANY examples nor evidence for.

You are lying.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am POINT OUT the EVIDENCE if there is ANY.

It has been pointed out. You ate it like a crayon.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:07 am ALL these words are defined by agreement, within one's self or any number within a group. What is so hard or BIG about that?

And we all agree that Age BELIEVES that Age has knowledge.

Age is very mistaken.

WHAT?

You are aware that this ASSUMING is only happening within that head. You could NOT be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

WHY do 'you' NOT answer the question or point out FAULT in what I write.

Again, who is 'we' that you refer to here? Find one person who agrees with you here.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 am

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:54 pm the universe doesn't need to be consistent, and i am all for an approach that seeks to find and emphasize inconsistency to the extent that it exists as that is just as important to understand as consistency, if not more important, both as a threat and opportunity for advancement. maybe a gross inconsistency is actually just what we need to make some leap.

What if the universe doesn't exist?

Then there is NO THING, obviously.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 amSuppose that tomorrow we uncover that we don't live in the universe,but we are in Biblical hell or something.

'Biblical hell' or 'something' IS then the Universe.

As long as there is some thing, then the Universe exists.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 amThen what? You begin a bunch of sentences but you never finis them.

Make a leap towards.... ?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:25 am NAME the BELIEF, if you can, and LET US SEE if it really is a BELIEF or not.

You believe that you have knowledge.

WRONG, AGAIN.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:27 amBut you are just munching on crayons.

OBVIOUSLY WRONG, and a very STUPID remark as well.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:25 am If one expresses that their own job is ahead of academia by a few decades, then if that is NOT trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others", then what is it?

It is something OTHER than "trying one's hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority".

From YOUR perspective. But that is EXACTLY HOW it comes across to some.

So, after all this time the best you can do to EXPLAIN YOURSELF is: "It is something OTHER ...".

NOT much thought nor effort put into that.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:27 amYou BELIEVE that i am trying to portray a sense of intellectual superiority.

NO I do NOT, and NEVER have.

WHY would you ASSUME such a STUPID and IDIOTIC thing?

You, "logik", REALLY can NOT work this out. LISTEN. I neither BELIEF or DISBELIEVE.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:27 amIt's called a Type I error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_an ... pe_I_error

If you had any knowledge you would know that.

AGAIN, a severe form of 'superiority complex' comes to the forefront.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am This alluding to some thing is about all you seem to be able to to now. NOT once do you answer the questions I put forward to you.

Because you ask stupid questions.

Are they?

Or, could it be that the one asked is TO STUPID to be able to answer them, correctly and properly?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am Nor do you comment on what I write. You just make accusations and allegations without EVER providing ANY examples nor evidence for.

You are lying.

ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER ACCUSATION, without ANY PROOF.

PROVE IT?

IF you do NOT, then that is MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF that you can NOT.

By the way you are the one who has SHOWN/ADMITTED through your own words that you have LIED, yet you are still UNAWARE of WHERE you have even done this.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am POINT OUT the EVIDENCE if there is ANY.

It has been pointed out. You ate it like a crayon.

LOL

You keep saying "it has been" but NEVER once has it ever been, BY YOU.

Go on let us SEE if just ONCE you can provide ANY. Give it a try, what do you have to lose?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:50 am what do you have to lose?

More crayons.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:50 am what do you have to lose?

More crayons.

Another superior adult remark.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:30 am Another superior adult remark.

Another Type I error.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:30 am Another superior adult remark.

Another Type I error.

What part exactly are you suggesting is error?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:18 am What part exactly are you suggesting is error?

Your inability to apply statistical inference in practice.
Your inability to recognize errors.

If you don't understand what that means, you are going to have to do your own homework. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:30 am Another superior adult remark.

Your error is thus.

I have been a youngster. You haven't been an adult.

To think that you have knowledge BECAUSE you are young. That's your arrogance.

Till you grow up, I'll just feed you crayons.