Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pmPhilosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs, much as you have done with your beon hypothesis. If it smoothes your passage from the cradle to the grave, it can be regarded as successful. Anybody who has actually studied philosophy will know that there are any number of stories that can account for exactly the same experiences. It is just a fact that the more elements to a story, the more likely that one of them is wrong.

a story with about 118 elements (possibly more on the way and some with changing names)

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 am

That does sound better.

Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

I am certain there must be, on the grounds that when cosmologists sought to measure the deceleration rate of universe expansion and discovered instead that the rate of expansion was accelerating, they invalidated Big Bang theory. The God theory is illogical: why would a supreme being create billions of humans with IQ's less than 100?

I've been seeking a better alternative for the last 60 years, and believe that a have finally developed a theory that is worth considering. I propose that instead of beginning with a single complex entity that spontaneously created the universe, the 'verse began as the eventual consequence of two absolutely simple and perfectly stable spaces colliding (within a simple containment space) and disrupting one another's natural tendency to do nothing except remain stable.

Each of these two spaces had three properties.
1. Existence (no origin, no beginning.)
2. Internal manifestation of a single, simple force that kept it stable.
3. A boundary condition.

The forces of each space were opposed to one another. Attempts of each space to restablize produced a conflict that resulted in the manifestation of consciousness. Of course the book mentioned above details the hows and whys, and an essay I've just finished does it more effectively than the book. I hope to publish the essay via Kindle and print-on-demand if I can make sense of Amazon's protocols.

GL

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:59 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am 3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?

The only defined spaces we know of seem to be those sections of a more general space that we carve out for particular usage, like the rooms of a house. Or for focused observation, like stars in our galaxy. To my best knowledge, the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries.

In effect, I must be using the term in an undefined way, like cosmologists do. Except that I do envision these spaces as having boundaries. I'm not smart enough to know how to mathematically define those boundaries.

GL

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pmPhilosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs, much as you have done with your beon hypothesis. If it smoothes your passage from the cradle to the grave, it can be regarded as successful. Anybody who has actually studied philosophy will know that there are any number of stories that can account for exactly the same experiences. It is just a fact that the more elements to a story, the more likely that one of them is wrong.

Agreed. I've proposed that religionists, philosophers, and cosmologists are paid to construct agreeable theories, whereas engineers are paid to make something that works.
GL

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

What do you actually think 'philosophy' is, and what do you think is the purpose of 'philosophy'?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly:

We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.

Obviously the less postulates or hypotheses the better.

In fact, the less assuming or guessing there is, then the closer to thee Truth of things.

Obviously, if there is NO postulates, NO hypotheses, NO assumptions, and NO guessing at all, then we have arrived at thee actual Truth.

Which, by the way, is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do, for the species; human being.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Over time, Aristotle's principle was modified by pinheads such as the mathematician Ptolemy, who blew off the "other things" clause and limited the postulate count to one of his own choosing, which he then used to develop "Ptolemaic Astronomy," the stupidest model of reality since monotheism, thereby setting the development of science back by 1400 years.

What is wrong with the model of reality of monotheism, to you? And, what, to you, is the most non stupid model of reality?

Oh, and by the way, WHY look at 'models' of reality anyway, especially when you can just look at 'Reality', Itself?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm The religious nit Ockham's silly rule (look it up for yourself)

Which source do you suggest we "look it up for ourselves"?

Are you even remotely aware that I could look up one source, which could provide me with a completely different and/or maybe a completely opposing view than the one that you have obtained and are referring to, so then what you will say will NOT make absolutely ANY sense at all?

If no, then now you are.

So, I suggest you tell us what 'rule', EXACTLY, are you talking about AND referring to.

Because if you do NOT, then I have absolutely NO idea what you are on about.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm has been the turd stuck in science's butt for centuries, because of it's absurd insistence that one thing must be the precursor to the the universe, no matter how complex the "one thing" might be:

e.g: An almighty God with the ability to create anything from nothing with a mere act of will,

WHY are you now bringing in ideas or concepts that are NOT even a possibility?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm Or an impossible to define "Physical Singularity" that appeared spontaneously and then blew itself up, creating a complex universe with 26 interconnected physical constants, matter, energy, all the principles of physics, and biological life forms who (except on philosophy forums) sometimes exhibit the phenomena of conscious self-awareness and cogent thought.

Again, WHY discuss 'that' what is IMPOSSIBLE?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel:
"Wheneve possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.

But what is there, which is supposedly "unknown"?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

GL

But this has ALREADY been done.

So, WHY look at the past and NOT look, and move, forward, now?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:42 am

That does sound better.

Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being?

Yes, thee actual Truth.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

The Universe, Itself, is the supremacy of ALL beings, and It is just, eternally.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:33 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:51 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pm My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders.

Would you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics?

How would you solve metaphysics in classical physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in relativistic physics?
How would you solve metaphysics in quantum physics?

I'd say you misunderstand the nature of the problem. To "solve" metaphysics is to unify physics.

Theory of Everything.

The recommendation is not my own, and it applies to all areas of physics, including quantumology. It also applies to all aspects of metaphysics, which, like it or not, is joined at the hip to basic physics.

My answers to your "How would..." questions are contained in the book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul." Lots of luck getting a copy, except directly from me. Amazon reneged on our publishing agreement. "How would..." does not apply. The answers are clearly defined.

More simply explained versions of these answers are in a synopsis which I'm currently trying to publish as an ebook or some internet-accessible form.

Your assessment of the problem is correct, and perhaps a bit shortsighted. The questions involving physics, cosmology, metaphysics, and human consciousness must be solved with a single and relatively simple theory, all together.

Already been done.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:33 am That's the easy part.

Yes this is for sure.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:33 am The hard part is getting it read by someone with a 3-digit IQ who knows enough to evaluate the concepts.

GL

Finding those with, the alleged, "3-digit IQ" is not hard at all. Finding those, however, who are Truly OPEN is another matter.

Would you like to share some of those concepts of yours here in this forum?

I would be more than happy to evaluate your concepts, but do not expect any "3-digit IQ" responses.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

How about not assuming there must be an explanation?

How about not assuming absolutely ANY thing at all, and, just look at what IS. From there ALL the explanations come forward and just fall into place.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm Existence just is

And, Existence, Itself, is just, and is very simple and easy to explain.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm and has the nature it has and is not contingent on anything else.

How do you KNOW this?

Is your claim here based on actual PROOF, or based on an ASSUMPTION of yours?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm Why presume there is some other thing (which you then must assume just is) preceding existence?

If your going to play the "what's the cause of everything," game, you lose.

How do you KNOW this?

Is it based on actual EVIDENCE, or better still actual PROOF, or, again, is this just based on your ASSUMPTION/S?

See, what is the cause of EVERY thing, has ALREADY been answered AND solved.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm Whatever your answer is (God, some physical event, etc.) you are going to have to answer, what caused that? It's called an infinite regress.

But an infinite regress is NOT what actually happens when you uncover what thee actual Truth IS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

How about not assuming there must be an explanation? Existence just is and has the nature it has and is not contingent on anything else. Why presume there is some other thing (which you then must assume just is) preceding existence?

If your going to play the "what's the cause of everything," game, you lose. Whatever your answer is (God, some physical event, etc.) you are going to have to answer, what caused that? It's called an infinite regress.

I think that's a fair point. Still, the irresistible temptation seems to present itself to some of us, I think. It seems difficult sometimes not to think in terms of beginnings and ends.

This is only due to the fact that 'you' had a beginning, along with EVERY thing else, besides, of course, thee Universe, Its Self.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:59 pm I assume somewhere out there is an absolute answer to such questions, although it may be impossible for us to know.

Why would you ASSUME such a thing?

Although, and by the way, thee absolute answer to such questions is actually NOT "somewhere out there" but is within. You just need to discover or learn HOW TO recognize and SEE thee absolute answer.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert Sheldrake's observation, a perfectly credible explanation can be constructed from a few simple hypotheses:

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

One space is that of Dark Energy, the space wherein our bodies, brains, and the essential supporting universe exists.

The other is something I call Aeon Space, which produces a counterforce to that of D.E., and is where our conscious minds exist.

The 3rd is a containment space that allows the others to interact.

GL

Interesting. I wonder if rethinking concepts such as substance, energy, matter, mind, space etc. and finding new concepts could conceivably work to produce a more coherent physics. Or are our current categories and terminology sufficient?

Your current, in the days of when this is being written, categories and terminology is VERY sufficient.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:56 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:59 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am 3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?

I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never introduced to an explanation of space that made an iota of sense. Give me a description of space that somehow differs from modern cosmology's use of "field." and I'll come back as best I can.

GL

'Space' is just the distance between objects.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:06 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am

I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert Sheldrake's observation, a perfectly credible explanation can be constructed from a few simple hypotheses:

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

One space is that of Dark Energy, the space wherein our bodies, brains, and the essential supporting universe exists.

The other is something I call Aeon Space, which produces a counterforce to that of D.E., and is where our conscious minds exist.

The 3rd is a containment space that allows the others to interact.

GL

Interesting. I wonder if rethinking concepts such as substance, energy, matter, mind, space etc. and finding new concepts could conceivably work to produce a more coherent physics. Or are our current categories and terminology sufficient?

Years ago I concluded that currently defined categories, plus the terminology that goes with them, are derived from the opinions of ancient monotheistic goat herders, and of no value to anyone trying to figure out the origins of things, human consciousness included.

Have you ever considered that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to figure out the origin of what is, actually, ETERNAL?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:06 am Hence the 3-space alternative described above, which seems to form the basis for a cogent but unpublished theory.

GL

WHY make up a 'theory', when thee actual Truth is RIGHT HERE, 'staring us in the face', as some say.

There is NO use making up 'theories' when thee actual Truth can ALREADY be OBSERVED, and discussed.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pmPhilosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs, much as you have done with your beon hypothesis.

But this is just your own version and story of what the 'whole point of philosophy is'.

Obviously, the 'whole point of philosophy' is NOT this at all, to "others".

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 am If it smoothes your passage from the cradle to the grave, it can be regarded as successful.

Although 'it' could be just completely and utterly WRONG, as well.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 am Anybody who has actually studied philosophy will know that there are any number of stories that can account for exactly the same experiences. It is just a fact that the more elements to a story, the more likely that one of them is wrong.

Thee actual Truth, Itself, is just plain and simply very easily understood.

Human beings, however, make thee actual Truth WRONG because they do add so many unnecessary elements to what is essentially a VERY BASIC and VERY SIMPLE story.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:49 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:27 am
Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas.

Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move on to a better explanation.

GL

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"?

I am certain there must be, on the grounds that when cosmologists sought to measure the deceleration rate of universe expansion and discovered instead that the rate of expansion was accelerating, they invalidated Big Bang theory. The God theory is illogical: why would a supreme being create billions of humans with IQ's less than 100?

LOL is this REALLY what you base the, so called, "God theory" on being illogical?

The big bang theory and the God theory are both invalidated by the very simple fact that for EVERY action there is a reaction. Cause and effect quashed those two theories entirely.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am I've been seeking a better alternative for the last 60 years, and believe that a have finally developed a theory that is worth considering.

WHY NOT just provide what is actually True, Right, and Correct, instead of just 'that', which you ASSUME is true, right, and/or correct?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am I propose that instead of beginning with a single complex entity that spontaneously created the universe, the 'verse began as the eventual consequence of two absolutely simple and perfectly stable spaces colliding (within a simple containment space) and disrupting one another's natural tendency to do nothing except remain stable.

If they were, so called, "remaining stable" and doing nothing else, then they would NOT collide.
Spaces colliding would also NOT cause ANY thing. And,
What caused these supposed "naturally doing nothing except remaining stable" 'spaces' to be moving in a "direction" towards each other?

Also, what could 'spaces' be made up of, exactly, which could create a collision?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am Each of these two spaces had three properties.
1. Existence (no origin, no beginning.)

Well obviously they MUST OF been 'existing' to have had;
1. A, so called, "natural tendency".
2. To be doing 'nothing'.
3. To be 'remaining stable'.

But this explains NOTHING of what these two, supposed, 'spaces' were EXACTLY. Let alone any explanation at all of how they came to be in Existence.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am 2. Internal manifestation of a single, simple force that kept it stable.

And what was that 'force' EXACTLY?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am 3. A boundary condition.

How could 'space', itself, have a "boundary" condition?

How, exactly, do you define the word 'space' here?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am The forces of each space were opposed to one another.

WHY?

And,

How do you KNOW this?

What forces are there that could be opposed to one another but both of which are properties of space?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am Attempts of each space to restablize produced a conflict that resulted in the manifestation of consciousness.

And this is based on 'what', exactly?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am Of course the book mentioned above details the hows and whys, and an essay I've just finished does it more effectively than the book.

Where can we see this essay?

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:10 am I hope to publish the essay via Kindle and print-on-demand if I can make sense of Amazon's protocols.

GL

Can you not just make a web page and copy and paste it on there?

Or do you want to obtain money for just sharing your concepts, and this forum is just another way to try and obtain more money?