The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Michael MD wrote:
I think most people would agree that intuitively cause and effect dictates that there had to be a starting point for the
universe after which changes appeared leading to our kind of world. It is an assumption based upon logic and intuition

Truth statements have no bearing upon popularity. The fact that they can be popular is entirely coincidental. As argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Without evidence you cannot claim that the universe had to have a starting point. Intuition is less than reliable in such matters

ken wrote:
Does assuming anything before actually knowing really make much sense

The problem is not in making assumptions. But in not testing them in order to determine their truth value. A hypothesis is
a truth assumption that can be subject to potential falsification. Without them science could no longer make any progress

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 5:29 am

ken wrote:
Does assuming anything before actually knowing really make much sense

The problem is not in making assumptions. But in not testing them in order to determine their truth value. A hypothesis is
a truth assumption that can be subject to potential falsification. Without them science could no longer make any progress

I understand what you are saying, but let us take this a step further. I found that if you are going to make an assumption, then it is still much better to not assume 'it', that what you are assuming, is true. I found that I can still look at things without having to make any truth assumptions at all, like when I look at the Universe for example. I found looking this way allowed and allows Me to find falsehoods and truths much quicker and easier. I think science also would make far more progress, and far quicker, if people who do science just stopped making any and all truth assumptions.

A 'hypothesis' in science could be; a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. No actual truth assumption has to be made here.
And,
A 'hypothesis' in philosophy could be; a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Again, no actual truth assumption has to be made here also.

Therefore, "science" and "philosophy" CAN still make progress without any truth assumptions being made, and I would argue that 'progress', that is finding truth, is made much quicker, simpler, and easier without any assumptions being made at all.

Science would not actually progress any further without truth assumptions. Because they would still have to be tested. But absolute
statements about the universe can be problematic for an inductive discipline such as science. Subsequent evidence might invalidate
existing knowledge although it is more likely to be the interpretation of evidence rather than actual evidence itself that causes this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 8:11 am Science would not actually progress any further without truth assumptions. Because they would still have to be tested.

To Me, your logic does not work here. One does not logically follow from the other.

But maybe your view of 'science' is completely different than mine, and that is why you believe your "truth statement" above is true.

To Me, we only have to test truth assumptions because they are made. If truth assumptions were not made, then they would not need to be tested. BUT science can still progress because to Me science is about studying what IS. There is way to much physical what IS for human beings to ever stop studying. There is just way to much stuff for science to not keep progressing.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 8:11 amBut absolute
statements about the universe can be problematic for an inductive discipline such as science. Subsequent evidence might invalidate
existing knowledge although it is more likely to be the interpretation of evidence rather than actual evidence itself that causes this

Is there any reason why you changed from 'truth assumptions' to 'absolute statements' in relation to the Universe? Absolute statements about anything that can not be verified inductively is problematic. To Me, any assumption about the Universe's beginning or not is problematic because human beings just do not know, in present days. No matter how many truth assumptions are made about whether the Universe began or not, it will be some time before human beings can verify or falsify them. So, in the meantime WHY not just remain open to what IS actually the truth?

I will still question WHY make any assumption and/or absolute statement about any thing? To Me, doing so is unnecessary because as I previously explained if instead of making truth statements for example and then testing them for truth values, what is wrong with just looking at what IS, BEFORE making any truth assumption? Instead of testing "truth statements and truth assumptions" for truth values, why not just look for and at and thus be testing for the truth, itself, always?

I do not see the purpose of making a truth statement, which could potentially be false. Why make the assumption in the beginning when you could just be looking for and at the truth?

Physics claims an ether doesn't exist, based on a series of experiments in the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s, by Albert Michelson and others. In setting up these experiments, it was assumed that measuring changes in the behavior of beams of light under changing ambient conditions would determine whether there is an ether "which serves as a medium" for transmitting light. The results of these experiments seemed to indicate that an ether which acts as a medium through which light is transmitted does not exist. Physics then discarded its time-honored concept of a universal ether which is required for light and other forms of energy to be transmitted. -Then physicists like Einstein started coming up with theories of how the world could work without a medium for transmitting forces through space.

In my ether model, however, an ether would not act purely as a medium for transmitting forces. In fact, the key effect of the ether in my model would be that the main components of the ether are elemental ether units, whose principal action is vibratory, or electrical, contact, between the elemental ether units.

(This kind of ether, of course, would also have an effect as a medium for the transmission through space of quantum units such as photons of light, and other larger energy units, which would have to physically pass through the ether, via "passages" between elemental units. -But I propose that this effect, which classical physicists like Michelson and others assumed would be the only effect of an ether to be considered, is actually not the principal effect going on energically in the ether. That effect is the electrical effect between the elemental ether units.

This would mean that the old experiments that physics still adheres to in dismissing the ether were based on false assumptions about how any type of ether would have to behave. -Other disciplines, like philosophy, derive some of their key assumptions about the nature of our world from the accuracy of the basic theories of physics ("there is no ether;" "the world started from a Big Bang", which I claim are incorrect.

ken wrote:
I do not see the purpose of making a truth statement which could potentially be false
Why make the assumption in the beginning when you could just be looking for and at the truth

It makes no difference as long as all potentially falsifiable hypotheses are actually tested. But the reason why assumptions [ whether true
or false ] are made is because of human nature. As a species we have an insatiable curiosity to both seek and acquire truth. The only way
to avoid this is to cease being human. Since human is essentially what we are then this is physically impossible so the assumptions remain

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 4:10 pm

ken wrote:
I do not see the purpose of making a truth statement which could potentially be false
Why make the assumption in the beginning when you could just be looking for and at the truth

It makes no difference as long as all potentially falsifiable hypotheses are actually tested. But the reason why assumptions [ whether true
or false ] are made is because of human nature. As a species we have an insatiable curiosity to both seek and acquire truth. The only way
to avoid this is to cease being human. Since human is essentially what we are then this is physically impossible so the assumptions remain

I agree wholeheartedly with your view about human nature being insatiably curious. However, and this is where we split, you insist that we need to and have to make assumptions. If I recall correctly you even believe we can not live if we do not make assumptions. Whereas, I do not think we have to make assumptions. I always try not to make assumptions, anyway. I could take this two ways but will just remain on one track for now.

To 'assume' some thing is to already think, know, believe, or be guessing the truthfulness of it, BEFORE the truth is actually known. To do this can lead to making oneself and others looking silly. To 'assume' is to suppose without evidence. The subtlety of this can be found when the word 'assume' is used against the word 'presume'. 'Presume', "to suppose (it is true) based on probability", whereas, 'assume', "to suppose (it is true) based without evidence. To assume some thing it is to suppose it is the case (true), without proof. From this perspective 'presume' would be a better word to use. But I still prefer not to assume or presume any thing.

'Hypothesis', however, is a great word to use as it implies a proposed explanation, made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. There is just an explanation, with no assumption of truth being made at all. 'Hypothesis' also implies that a proposition is being made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

A 'hypothesis' in science and/or philosophy makes no truth statement, so there is no assumption of a truth being made nor implied anywhere. Whereas an 'assumption' infers a truth statement, before the truth is known. I wait till I can see, understand, and know what the actual truth is before I have a view and express that view, and that is why I do not ever, consciously, assume any thing. If I do not yet know the truth of some thing, then I will not assume I do know. You can now say then that makes Me not human, which is perfectly fine because I know what the truth is. I know who I am already.

If you can see and understand the subtleties of all of this and can also see that we do NOT have to make assumptions, then we can move forward and onto the other track if you would like.

I think presume is a better word than assume. But it does not address the fundamental nature of the way human beings think. For we are still emotional beings as much as we are logical ones. Scientists should be as objective as possible when doing science but subjective or emotional
thinking is how they think when not doing science because no one thinks objectively or logically all the time. We are human beings not robots

Classical physicists assumed that an ether would be fluidic in nature, acting solely as a "medium" for light and other energy transmissions to pass through. My ether model claims that the ether is electric, not fluidic, and that this is a very key point in considering how forces operate, such as in considering phenomena like quantum entanglement. The basic theory of forces is important, and its ramifications are affecting other areas of thought.

The experiments that led physics to reject the existence of an ether assumed that light was transmitted solely by quantum (actually "sub" quantum") units, the photon, which "acts as an independent wave particle", not interacting with any other kinds of units along its path.

My model claims that physics is ignoring the strong possibility that the experiments they still base their rejection of an ether on were based on false assumptions about how light beams travel through the ether. -I claim that photons of light are constructed of elemental ether units, and the behavior of photons in the ether involves their interactions with much smaller elemental units, affecting light transmissions very differently from what the experimenters assumed.

My model would have it that while certain observations seem to suggest that any type of ether would be acting as a fluid (especially the "wave" effect), the true mechanisms involved are electric. In my model, photons, as they pass through a "sea" of much smaller elemental units, the photons of light demonstrate their wave patterns because of a 'shoreline" effect that is produced as etheroidal units are transitioning to sub-quantal units, so that the photonic particle/wave effect would be merely a secondary manifestation.

Physics is misguiding other fields of thought via important consequences of certain key assumptions, about the nature of basic forces, that can be interpretable in a different way.

Michael MD wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 1:30 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2017 11:15 pm I don’t get the linear aspect. Simultaneous connection over vast distances would eliminate time and thus any rational requirement for the linear.

In my ether-model, Time is a rate which, for atomic physical entities like ourselves, reaches backward to the rate of vibration of the elemental ether unit. (The elemental ether unit is the ultimate "element," or constituent, of quantum units and everything else.) -If the surroundings are highly energic, as it would be near a planet or other magnetic-energy body, the rate of vibration increases, and time passes faster. -In far outer space, well removed from the energizing influences of cosmic bodies, the ether is less energized, the elemental ether units vibrate slower, and time passes slower. -This is a different model for Time than the standard physics model.

The concept in my model for quantum entanglement regarding "simultaneous connection" between quantum units, is that in quantum entanglement, it is radiated packets of ether energy, conveyed by multiple minute elemental ether units, which forms a conducted impulse through the ether matrix between the two quantum units, that is responsible for the entanglement.

A chain reaction of causality moving from point A to point B in linear sequence through a medium, when the points are on either side of the universe, makes sense if time is eliminated. Slow time in deep space would account for this, but even so, this is not instantly interacting.

Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/scie ... .html?_r=0

“But since the 1970s, a series of precise experiments by physicists are increasingly erasing doubt — alternative explanations that are referred to as loopholes — that two previously entangled particles, even if separated by the width of the universe, could instantly interact.”

“The tests take place in a mind-bending and peculiar world. According to quantum mechanics, particles do not take on formal properties until they are measured or observed in some way. Until then, they can exist simultaneously in two or more places. Once measured, however, they snap into a more classical reality, existing in only one place.”

*

Keeping attention on this lecture is quite a trip.

Feynman explains how positrons move backwards in time.
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/47

My ether model would account for how a slower rate of Time could be conducted across the universe and produce a slowed-down rate of time somewhere else in the cosmos. The ether exists everywhere, but far away from cosmic bodies with magnetic fields, in far-outer space, the ether is less energized, the elemental ether units vibrate slower, and Time runs slower. -But a slower rate could still obtain near a cosmic body if it happens to be a less magnetized, less quantized, more etheric, localized area.

The continuity of the ether across vast distances of space would transmit the slower rate all the way from the ether in outer space, which is vastly larger than the magnetic regions, through the intervening distance, no matter how great the distance. -This would be how you would account for certain zones nearer to us where Time has been found to "somehow" slow down.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2017 9:39 am I think presume is a better word than assume. But it does not address the fundamental nature of the way human beings think. For we are still emotional beings as much as we are logical ones. Scientists should be as objective as possible when doing science but subjective or emotional
thinking is how they think when not doing science because no one thinks objectively or logically all the time. We are human beings not robots

Well I think remaining open, or looking objectively, was my point, was it not? And, a person can not be looking objectively while assuming some thing is already true when it may in fact be false, (nor or when they are using emotions to look at a particular thing). If a person is looking for the truth of a matter, which is what a "scientist" is meant to be doing, then remaining open, especially when they are doing their job, is why I will continue to say it is better to not assume any thing.

Obviously human beings are not robots. Human beings are human beings, plain and simple. But human beings also evolve and when they eventually evolve past being human they evolve into a being that is able to look at things objectively and logically all the time. This ability requires not using Assumptions based on Previous Experiences, or what I call APE, as well as not using emotions to look and make observations. But you know this already as I have previously related this to you in past discussion.

You are right in that human beings think subjectively and illogically. But as you already know they can think objectively and logically some of the time also. If and when those human beings who learn how they can actually look at things from a truly objective viewpoint, then that is when they are able to look at, see, and understand things from a completely objective and logical viewpoint. This is when human beings evolve past being a thinking human being and into a knowing "superior" Being. This Being (whatever we want to call It) knows what is true, right, and correct, whereas human beings mostly only think they know what is true, right, and correct.

Actually the fundamental nature of the way human beings think is what is preventing them from evolving more quickly into what they are destined to become. If human beings want to continue to think the way human beings think, then they will remain that. But if human beings want to learn how to think, look at things, in a different way, then they will evolve much further, faster.

What will the function of the right hemisphere of the brain be if human beings evolve into a state of existence where they only think objectively Is it not more likely that such thinking will be better achieved by artificial intelligence which can be programmed to think like that? Is it not also possible that human evolution has reached its peak? And that the evolution into a superior being you assume will happen will actually not? In any
case I am naturally sceptical of such an assumption because you have no evidence to support it as I am of any evidence free assumption or claim

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:06 pm What will the function of the right hemisphere of the brain be if human beings evolve into a state of existence where they only think objectively

I did not say that human beings will eventually evolve into only thinking objectively, (all the time). I said when human beings evolve into a being that is able to look at things objectively all the time. Knowing how to do some thing all the time, and thus being able to do that thing all the time, is very different from actually doing that thing all the time. After learning how to only think objectively, and thus now knowing how to do it is a tremendous gift to obtain, but that does not necessarily mean that that human being will only think objectively. This is a bit like after a human being learns to be kind and considerate to others, and thus now knows how to do it, does not necessitate into that human being only being kind and considerate. Obviously emotions will arise. BUT because they now know how to only think objectively (or are now able to think objectively all the time), they have far greater control over those emotions. They also know what emotions are for and are less likely to look at things (or think) subjectively, and then react or mis/behave they would have previously.

After learning these things and more, they will also learn and/or discover much more about how the brain works. After discovering how the Mind and the brain actually work then they will see and understand how both "sides" of the brain is capable of working much more together as one, in harmony with one another. The actual conflicting views people have within themselves can be dissolved completely. Further to this when all people have overcome a lot of their contradicting and conflicting views within themselves then they further evolve into being closer with one another until they are working towards and behaving as One. The Mind and the brain/s as that One "superior" Being. By the way the "superior" word is only used for lack of a better word for now. Maybe 'more advanced' or 'more or further evolved' words would be better?

Anyhow, creativity ("right") used in harmony with logic ("left") makes for a better (more advanced and evolved) Creator. We all after all the Creator of (our) Life. But all of this will be better and more understood further along. The more inquisitive one is the more they are able to learn and understand. But what comes from inquisitiveness is open-ended and clarifying questioning, which I do not encounter much of at all here really.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:06 pm Is it not more likely that such thinking will be better achieved by artificial intelligence which can be programmed to think like that?

Your assumption that I had said that human beings will evolve into a state of existence where they only think objectively has led you to ask a question like this. Human beings are so good at being able to think purely objectively and logically that it is in fact them who has the ability to create artificial intelligence into another create thing like a machine and/or robot. I frequently ponder over what human beings create and thus how amazingly intelligent they can be, especially when compared to any other living thing, but wonder why human beings do not actually see that they themselves are the creators of the world and the life that they now live in. Human beings very rarely stop to actually look at and be amazed at they are the actual creators of life. In fact human beings are so good at being creators that they can even create a machine with such thinking as thinking objectively as nearly as good as they, themselves, are capable of doing it.

To think completely objectively is not a very hard thing to do at all. If a loved one dies emotions will obviously arise, like loss, sadness, grief, et cetera. In fact we would not be human if they did not arise, but we can still look at things (think) objectively without letting these emotions control us. We can still function without being an emotion wreck. For example it would be overacting to say some thing like, "They died unexpectedly", If an adult human being expected another human being to not die and live forever, then they are not thinking objectively. To let emotions take over is to not think objectively. For example if you are crying over the "loss of another" then this could be questioned. Are you crying over the actual loss of another or are you crying because of how you are actually feeling? Are you crying for the other person or only for yourself? Are you crying because of how you feel, and thus only crying for yourself? Are you crying because you have lost some thing? No matter how many tears you shed and how much you cry for the other person there is absolutely nothing you can do for the other. All the weeping, hysterical crying, and any thing else you are doing is for you only. The only one you are reacting because of and for is the ( or your) self. Saying this however, it is perfectly normal to have emotions (internal feelings) when things happen around you but to base your mis/behaviors on those feelings instead of logical and objective thinking is a rather childish or immature thing to do. Crying is a necessary part of being heard, some babies would die if they did not cry (make noise) in order to be heard. Human beings need this to grow. But to suggest we can not grow by evolving into more advanced and/or more mature beings is to reject the obvious.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:06 pmIs it not also possible that human evolution has reached its peak?

Could be, but very unlikely. Have you ever heard of a generation not talk as though each generation before was "backwards" to them? I am pretty sure this "we are more advanced than the ones before" attitude will continue further forwards also.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:06 pmAnd that the evolution into a superior being you assume will happen will actually not?

Maybe not, but I can see it happening already. And I understand how it happens and how it will happen much more quickly also in the future.

This is not to say human beings are stupid enough to wipe themselves out. But in any case, in a Universe as vast and as expanse as this one, evolution continues until another creature eventually evolves into an intelligent enough being to create the "world" that it lives in. And with a time-frame as long as the Universe, Itself, an intelligent enough being will eventually evolve into One that is more advanced or as superior as a God-like Being.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:06 pmIn any
case I am naturally sceptical of such an assumption because you have no evidence to support it as I am of any evidence free assumption or claim

What is the alleged assumption? That human beings evolve into a more "superior" Being, (for lack of a better word)? Do you not see human beings evolving, all the time? I am sure you do not think human beings are the same now as they were 10, 100, 200, or 1000 thousand years ago do you? But to add to this I can see how human beings can be far more stupid than they were previously also, but I am sure you can understand where human beings are evolving into a more advanced or into a more "superior" being all the time. The creations we continually make should be enough evidence of how we human beings are continually becoming, or evolving into, a more advance species or Being.

By the way who says I have no evidence to support what I see and know? If no challenging, clarifying, or open-ended are asked, then how would anyone know I do not have any evidence. When what I have been writing is read from a truly open perspective, then all will be revealed and thus seen. Further to this, if you look at what I write from a presumptive perspective, then not much at all will be revealed.