Page 20 of 28
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:57 pm
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:35 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:30 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:12 pm
by Harbal
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:57 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:35 pm
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?
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:30 pm
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:57 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:45 pm
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?
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:56 pm
by Harbal
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:30 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:57 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:07 pm
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:30 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:12 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:17 pm
by Harbal
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:07 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:30 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:59 pm
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:07 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:56 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:05 pm
by Harbal
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:59 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:07 pm
"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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:12 pm
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:05 pm
I knew you'd understand.
All good.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:36 am
by Janoah
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:17 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:55 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:20 pm
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?
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:10 pm
by Immanuel Can
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:17 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:55 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:03 pm
by Janoah
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:10 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:17 pm
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:39 pm
by Immanuel Can
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:10 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:36 am
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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:39 pm
by Janoah
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:39 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:10 pm
"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.
Re: Moral Compass
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:53 pm
by Immanuel Can
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:39 pm
Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:03 pm
"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?
