Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:02 am
That is; the Universe is in A STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

So they say, but does that account for CONSTANT ANTI-CHANGE?

'This' appears to be a rather SILLY and WEIRD 'thing' to ASK.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:02 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:22 am
OK, so what was going on 25 billion years ago?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' which is going ON HERE-NOW, ETERNALLY, EVERYWHERE.

That is; the Universe is in A STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

Oh yeah?

YES.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:16 am So what changed 13.8 billion years ago?

The Universe. Just like 'It' ALWAYS IS, HERE-NOW.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:19 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:22 pm If you read and understood the Kalaam, there's no way you're going to miss that point.

Rather, I am critiquing the validity of the premise (1) and the premise itself does not assume any "supernatural" or super-to-nature or unnatural or nonphysical "First Cause".

That which we call the natural/physical world is a consequence of the singularity colloquially referred to as The Big Bang; or if you want to be more contemporary - the quantum fluctuations.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that the so-called 'singularity', 'big bang' and/or 'quantum fluctuations' are themselves NOT Natural/physical 'things'?

Oh, and by the way, what you call 'singularity', 'big bang', and/or 'quantum fluctuations' are CONSEQUENCE OF, EXACTLY?

Or, do you think or BELIEVE that, or those, 'thing/s' just AROSE out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:19 am The antecedent of the quantum fluctuations (of which the natural/physical is a consequence) is non-natural and non-physical by definition.

In WHICH dictionary does one FIND 'this definition'?

Also, if ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that prior to 'quantum fluctuations' there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COULD BE true and accurate, let alone IS true and accurate, then 'what' are they basing this thought or BELIEF ON, EXACTLY?

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NO ACTUAL 'data', 'evidence', NOR 'proof' for 'this'. While on the CONTRARY there IS ACTUAL 'data', 'evidence' AND 'proof' for the OPPOSITE here.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:19 am If what you get beyond nature is more nature; or what you get beyond physics is more physics - that's just definition-stretching.

But you do NOT get ANY 'thing' BEYOND Nature.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:19 am Or you can do like Atla is doing: stretch the definition of "the universe".

WHAT has "atla", SUPPOSEDLY, so-called 'stretched' the definition of 'the universe' FROM, and TO, EXACTLY?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:19 am Such definitions appear to be unlike elastic bands - they seem to stretch infinitely without snapping.

But 'you' would NEVER do 'this' "yourself" would 'you' "skepdick"?

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:04 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 10:21 am
1: The notion that the universe is not mindful is based on observation. The notion grew out of the late medeval period, especially with the French philsosophes. It has become clear that consciousness, midnfulness and clear evidences of intentionality are the the direct empirically observable consequences of the presence of healthy neural/cerebral tissue. The materialists universe is far from "mindless", but that the existence of minds can be inferred from the direct observation of living animals. The idea that the entire universe has a mind is absurd, and relagated to the primitive mind of the savage.

2: ALL evidence of the existence of "minds" as I explain above requires a high level of evolved neural matter.
The idea that this pre-exists matter is absurd.

1: I have to remember that as a human being deep within the "rabbit hole" of the universe, to claim that "the universe is not mindful is based on observation" is to mislead myself with the limitations of the human instrument, which we know is only capable of experiencing a certain range of frequencies from the huge number of frequencies which the universe actually exhibits.
So to say that I cannot "see" these and proclaim "these do not exist" because of that, would be a mistake.

“whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent” Wittgenstein
Unless you want to make a fool of yourself and live in a fantasy world.
Which is exactly what Theists do.

2: Even if the universe exhibits mindfulness through biological form alone, (at least according to consciousnesses experiencing biological forms) why should I believe that mindfulness is not a natural state of the universe as a whole,

DUH.
Because we know through science what generates consciousness. You might was well ask why are humans not like black holes, unicorns or comets - because they are also in the universe.

... and was present within the physical singularity proposed by the Big Bang Theory or is not physical as everything else that the universe is? (as opposed to the idea that mind is "non-physical/supernatural" re the thread question.)

Gibber

__________________

From another mirror-thread on another message board.

Kalam Cosmology: The universe began to exist.

Critique: Ultimately this is the fault with the kalam argument. While it's true that that the universe had a beginning, the singularity prior to it does not technically have a beginning. If the singularity includes time-and-space, then there is no prior to the singularity. Because of this, there is a hard limit to material cosmology.

Me: By asserting that the singularity includes time and space, you appear to be emphasizing that it is not just a theoretical abstraction but a concrete part of the physical description of the universe. If that is so, this perspective raises questions about how one defines a "beginning" in the presence of such a singularity, particularly if the singularity itself does not have a clear "prior" in terms of time and space. This nuanced view challenges simplistic interpretations of the universe having a straightforward beginning, as posited by some cosmological arguments.

_______________

More gibber

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:38 pm Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past ...

Why are you promoting it then?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 4:14 am So, to the so-called "materialists", which can NOT see a 'mind' made out of 'matter' 'these mind' things' still exist based upon NOTHING AT ALL but 'an inference' MADE, based SOLELY UPON the direct observation of living animals, right?

Can I remind you that I never respond to posts which use Capitalisation.
I've no interest in wasting your time and I note that you responded to my posts threee times.
If you want to engage me in conversation then you will need to desist from your absurd practice

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:10 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 4:14 am So, to the so-called "materialists", which can NOT see a 'mind' made out of 'matter' 'these mind' things' still exist based upon NOTHING AT ALL but 'an inference' MADE, based SOLELY UPON the direct observation of living animals, right?

Can I remind you that I never respond to posts which use Capitalisation.

YET 'you' JUST RESPONDED to this capitalized post "sculptor".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:10 pm I've no interest in wasting your time and I note that you responded to my posts threee times.
If you want to engage me in conversation then you will need to desist from your absurd practice

OKAY.

This here is ANOTHER example of when NOT being ABLE TO ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION/S I pose, and ASK, OPENLY and Honestly, 'they' WILL MAKE UP some sort of EXCUSE NOT TO.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:38 pm Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to.

What?

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

Can you explain morality in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Therefore morality is supernatural. By definition.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:23 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:10 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:24 pm
Every time you reach for that phrase you have all the evidence you need that the conversation is above your level of understanding.

Cure your ignorance - ask questions. Throwing phrases like "word salad" around isn't making you any less ignorant than you already are.

Word salad. Quote me saying that the boundary of the whole universe is there, which was exactly what I doubted.

I doubt your doubt.

Tell me a story about what was going on in the universe 25 billion years ago.

There are several, not my preferred choice.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:32 am
No it's not.

Great!

Then where's your countercase? Let's see it.

I already told where.

Yeah. Sure. Remind me again.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:41 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:26 pm
Great!

Then where's your countercase? Let's see it.

I already told where.

Yeah. Sure. Remind me again.

I already did that too as this is the second topic recently where the 2nd law came up with you. Just stick to the Bible.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:41 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:38 am

I already told where.

Yeah. Sure. Remind me again.

I already did that too ...

You aren't doing it now. You didn't do it then.

Prove me wrong. Do it now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:41 pm
Yeah. Sure. Remind me again.

I already did that too ...

You aren't doing it now. You didn't do it then.

Prove me wrong. Do it now.

You've already proven yourself wrong, there isn't much to add.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:49 pm

I already did that too ...

You aren't doing it now. You didn't do it then.

Prove me wrong. Do it now.

You've already proven yourself wrong, there isn't much to add.

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 3:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:52 pm
You aren't doing it now. You didn't do it then.

Prove me wrong. Do it now.

You've already proven yourself wrong, there isn't much to add.

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

You could read the Wiki page or ask ChatGPT, open any physics book, or read an article on entropy. Let's see if you are able to do it.