Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:48 pm You think too much.

I've never heard that being used as a pejorative.

Alas. Here you are.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:18 am By the way what is it that you want to SHOW in this forum?

What I am showing is that choice is more fundamental than "truth".

Are you really?

You are searching for a "Truth that stands on its own".
That's called an axiom.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:46 amAll axioms are arbitrary choices.

But I am NOT searching for a Truth that stands on its own.

I ALREADY KNOW that Truth, which already stands on its own

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:18 am Also, WHY does a self-reporting "computer scientist" say that the term 'infinite Universe' is describing a BOUNDED universe?

Because there is a choice between two axioms:

A. ∞ + 1 > ∞
B ∞ + 1 = ∞

That would infer there is a choice between ALL axioms. And, all axioms are arbitrary choices.
Is this correct?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:54 pm That would infer there is a choice between ALL axioms. And, all axioms are arbitrary choices.
Is this correct?

It depends.

Do you think that the Truth you KNOW can be expressed in language?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:54 pm That would infer there is a choice between ALL axioms. And, all axioms are arbitrary choices.
Is this correct?

It depends.

Do you think that the Truth you KNOW can be expressed in language?

Yes. Very simply and easily.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:00 pm Yes. Very simply and easily.

Then go ahead and express it.

Write a blog like wtf maybe?

Logik wrote: Then go ahead and express it.
...

Some hope.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:25 pm Some hope.

We have enough passengers on this boat.

Science needs people who are willing, and not afraid to be wrong...

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:33 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:44 am
What game do you think I am playing?

And, what are you skeptic about exactly?

That you are acting 'skeptical' but appearing to simultaneously not be by your choice to deny any position as even potentially possible without proving them impossible as a potential yourself as well as:

So, you are skeptical about that I may be acting "skeptical", is this correct?

If yes, but then you also think that I am also appearing not to being 'skeptical', is this correct?

If yes, then that is SOME assuming going on here.

If no, to both or either of them, then what is correct?

If you Truly WANT to KNOW what I am doing, then WHY NOT just ask me, instead?

By the way from my understanding I do NOT see how any of the so called "positions" in relation to the Universe, Itself, could work. I am curious to SEE how they could so that is WHY I ask clarifying questions.

Of course because of the way I LOOK AT things, to me, the "current" positions on the Universe are potentially possible. BUT first some one would NEED to be able to explain HOW the Universe, when defined as ALL-THERE-IS, could 'start', and HOW it could start from nothing, or from some thing, would NEED to be explained also. When that is sufficiently explained, then we can move on to the so called "expansion" part. I will then explain HOW the FACTS as expressed in the book do NOT add up to a so called "expansion", and then I will move on to asking HOW an edge/boundary/et cetera could BE to a so called "finite" universe AND WHAT it could be made up of. When that is sufficiently explained, then I will ask WHERE that possibly could be, and if explained sufficiently enough, then I will ask WHAT exactly is on the "other" side of that boundary/edge/et cetera, as well as ask WHY is 'that', which is proposed to be on the "other" side, NOT also part of ALL-THERE-IS, and then ask WHERE does this "other side" stop/finish/et cetera?

If ANY of these can NOT be explained efficiently enough, then I will propose that there is ANOTHER view, which can explain ALL-OF-THIS SUFFICIENTLY enough. I will also say IF any one is Truly interested enough, then I can EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS to them.

Sorry that I'm late responding. Was away for a few days. I might not be able to fully respond fully today either.

I'm guessing you hold some alternative predisposition that is non-scientific and probably religious. (And this is both a real question as well as a rhetorical statement. So don't bother asking why I don't just ask you. Just express it as it may help to try to communicate with you FROM your background. I'll try to separate any motive from the topic at hand.)

I hear you say that you want an explanation of how a 'something' (our Universe) can be derived from a nothing and that, even should it BE a something, how do we know it, correct?

First off, science as an institute that involves people who only deal with shareable experiences, it requires reducing the effort of its construct to shareable observations and shareable reasoning, something that is just as much political at times even within its intent to divorce itself from. But the one thing the majority of them agree to is that we cannot necessarily speak of the 'why' (for what ultimate reason, that is). Rather, the intent is to start from where we are locally and work backwards to induce and deduce as best we can to the causes by seeking connections about physical realities. The 'theories' are, at least to myself and many others, an extension to philosophy in that it DOES try to explain the 'why' but as a tentative one that helps to present the patterns we discover for prediction purposes and as a framework for the practicality of technology derived from it.

As such, most scientists don't propose origin causation that cannot be proven without both observation and the logic used to connect the dots of such 'sensed' data. I say most because it is hard for real people NOT to try their hand at it. The idea of removing a 'religious' explanation doesn't necessarily get replaced nor displaced but HAS to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator: that of which no bias exists to prefer any person's extraneous subjective beliefs beyond what any neutral person may have.

I happen to be atheist which happens to fit better with this effort and still see that even the institute of science can still be favorable to some minimal beliefs that may be considered, 'religious'. The trust of the Big Bang theory to me seems to be a common accepted backbone for many that I think likely has a politic to at least NOT affect others religiously. As to the origin that implies a "wall" concept, I have three threads that I've already opened before that actually argues against the concept. One is on a 'beginning', another on the 'ending' and the third on the middle-type "walls", something like the limits of the 'coldest' temperature, for example.

I believe that these are all 'limits' in the way of Calculus and NOT actual real points (or 'walls'). I don't think that we can scientifically speak of a CERTAIN actual limit but as a perceptual one only. As such, the Big Bang theory to me only breaks the intended rules of science if or where it assumes the singularity of which its theory was based upon, as a REAL origin. This does NOT, however, mean that the Big Bang theory is 'wrong', to me. It only means that I disagree with any part of it that assumes something certain as an origin without recognition of other explanations that attempt to 'conserve' our local interpretation of observations, that include TIME. This is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle": that we have to judge our perceptions about what we observe here and now as though it were constant in time as well as space. [The prior "Cosmological Principle" means we treat things the same everywhere in space as the same but NOT time.]

These Cosmological Principles ARE guesses still in that they just propose a starting point of agreement. But it rules out supernatural causation. For instance, we cannot know for certain if at some time in the past that Jesus walked on actual water or that he turned a real loaf of bread into many literally. This is because we cannot recognize this here and now. This is that Cosmological Principle.

So, I'll close this thread for fear of losing what I write and move on. But may I ask a question: Do you agree with at least the "Cosmological Principle" as a scientific presumption to proceed with?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:30 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:25 pm Some hope.

We have enough passengers on this boat.

Science needs people who are willing, and not afraid to be wrong...

Nothing is right or wrong only thinking makes it so.

All Fictional BS..

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:34 pm Nothing is right or wrong only thinking makes it so.

All Fictional BS..

A living nihilist is the most ironic and absurd oxymoron.

The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself. --Albert Camus

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:34 pm Nothing is right or wrong only thinking makes it so.

All Fictional BS..

A living nihilist is the most ironic and absurd oxymoron.

The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself. --Albert Camus

Nothing is alive or dead...except in this conception...fictional BS

NOTE: I'm vacating this thread other than to speak on Will's book. Besides already breaking the rule not to tread on Will's thread outside of the topic, there is far too much to read let alone respond to. I want to respect this and open distinct threads on whatever issues we've digressed to. Obvious in contention is Age's concern about expansion of something infinite that I see Logik here on the last few pages was still discussing with Age about. So we need a thread that asks "How can something more come from an infinity?" which is related to the question of how something can come from nothing question.

I'm not sure how to answer (or open discussion on) this yet and so will hold back from opening a thread until I have more time. But if anyone else does, I'll see it and join in later.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:00 pm Yes. Very simply and easily.

Then go ahead and express it.

'THAT' what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL is the Truth, as I have ALREADY expressed.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:17 pmWrite a blog like wtf maybe?

I do NOT understand what you are saying here.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:33 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:56 am That you are acting 'skeptical' but appearing to simultaneously not be by your choice to deny any position as even potentially possible without proving them impossible as a potential yourself as well as:

So, you are skeptical about that I may be acting "skeptical", is this correct?

If yes, but then you also think that I am also appearing not to being 'skeptical', is this correct?

If yes, then that is SOME assuming going on here.

If no, to both or either of them, then what is correct?

If you Truly WANT to KNOW what I am doing, then WHY NOT just ask me, instead?

By the way from my understanding I do NOT see how any of the so called "positions" in relation to the Universe, Itself, could work. I am curious to SEE how they could so that is WHY I ask clarifying questions.

Of course because of the way I LOOK AT things, to me, the "current" positions on the Universe are potentially possible. BUT first some one would NEED to be able to explain HOW the Universe, when defined as ALL-THERE-IS, could 'start', and HOW it could start from nothing, or from some thing, would NEED to be explained also. When that is sufficiently explained, then we can move on to the so called "expansion" part. I will then explain HOW the FACTS as expressed in the book do NOT add up to a so called "expansion", and then I will move on to asking HOW an edge/boundary/et cetera could BE to a so called "finite" universe AND WHAT it could be made up of. When that is sufficiently explained, then I will ask WHERE that possibly could be, and if explained sufficiently enough, then I will ask WHAT exactly is on the "other" side of that boundary/edge/et cetera, as well as ask WHY is 'that', which is proposed to be on the "other" side, NOT also part of ALL-THERE-IS, and then ask WHERE does this "other side" stop/finish/et cetera?

If ANY of these can NOT be explained efficiently enough, then I will propose that there is ANOTHER view, which can explain ALL-OF-THIS SUFFICIENTLY enough. I will also say IF any one is Truly interested enough, then I can EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS to them.

Sorry that I'm late responding. Was away for a few days. I might not be able to fully respond fully today either.

I'm guessing you hold some alternative predisposition that is non-scientific and probably religious.

Guessing is very close to assuming. "Guessing" and "assuming" can BOTH be very WRONG.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm(And this is both a real question as well as a rhetorical statement. So don't bother asking why I don't just ask you. Just express it as it may help to try to communicate with you FROM your background. I'll try to separate any motive from the topic at hand.)

I come from NO religious nor scientific background, nor do I even come from an educated background as well.

Imagine how much quicker, simpler, and easier it would have been if you just ask me a clarifying question instead, from the outset? Anyway, what I want to express is consistent with both religious AND scientific views and brings BOTH of them together harmoniously, revealing 'that' what is the actual and real Truth in BOTH of them. This explains and SHOWS the Truth in each other, while the falsehoods in both are also clearly revealed.

One example is BOTH work on the PRESUMPTION of "In the beginning", as though the Universe had a beginning. This is clearly seen in some religious texts AND in some scientific texts. When 'it is written'; "In the beginning", in religious texts, or "The early Universe", in scientific texts, then these are interpreted in ways that form ASSUMPTIONS and/or could be ASSUMPTIONS, themselves.

Now although there is a 'beginning' in one sense there is NOT in another sense. "In the beginning" is NOT the beginning that some people assume it to be. "In the beginning", in religious text, does NOT refer to the beginning of the Universe, Itself, nor to the beginning of Creation, Itself, also. The words 'In the beginning' is intended for a specific purpose. The words 'The early Universe' implies some thing, which could be absolutely WRONG.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmI hear you say that you want an explanation of how a 'something' (our Universe) can be derived from a nothing and that, even should it BE a something, how do we know it, correct?

It would help IF people want to INSIST that there was a beginning.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmFirst off, science as an institute that involves people who only deal with shareable experiences,

Make it noted that 'shareable experiences' is how I explain HOW the Truth of things is ALREADY known. That is; through those SHARED EXPERIENCES, which are in agreement with and by ALL, then that is HOW the Truth of things is REACHED and KNOWN.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm it requires reducing the effort of its construct to shareable observations and shareable reasoning, something that is just as much political at times even within its intent to divorce itself from. But the one thing the majority of them agree to is that we cannot necessarily speak of the 'why' (for what ultimate reason, that is).

WHY did you bring the 'why' word in here now?

The WHY answer/s come AFTER the WHAT (the Truth) answers are discovered/revealed first. WHEN the Truth comes about is AFTER the HOW to FIND ALL answers becomes KNOWN.

But anyway what has the 'why' got to do with what you brought up, which is the explanation/s for how some thing can come from one thing and/or from no thing?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmRather, the intent is to start from where we are locally and work backwards to induce and deduce as best we can to the causes by seeking connections about physical realities.

Yes you can do that. Or, you can just LOOK AT 'what IS' instead, which by the way, almost instantly, SHOWS you what the actual and real Truth IS. "Inducing" or "deducing" is NOT really necessary this way.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm The 'theories' are, at least to myself and many others, an extension to philosophy in that it DOES try to explain the 'why' but as a tentative one that helps to present the patterns we discover for prediction purposes and as a framework for the practicality of technology derived from it.

All seems to be a very convoluted, complex, and hard way to do what is essentially and actually an extremely simple and easy thing to do.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmAs such, most scientists don't propose origin causation that cannot be proven without both observation and the logic used to connect the dots of such 'sensed' data.

WHY would any person, let alone one called "scientist", propose origin causation, when the facts SHOW there was NO origin to the Universe, literally, 'in the beginning'.

Think about it and tell us WHY there is continually a PRESUMPTION that there was even an origin to the Universe?

If most scientists do NOT propose origin causation, then WHY is the "origin" word even used?

Also remember you are meant to be answering my question about HOW could some thing come from one thing or from nothing?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmI say most because it is hard for real people NOT to try their hand at it.

You are losing me now. What is/are 'real people'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmThe idea of removing a 'religious' explanation doesn't necessarily get replaced nor displaced but HAS to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator: that of which no bias exists to prefer any person's extraneous subjective beliefs beyond what any neutral person may have.

Could this be in any way related to my VIEW that it is better to LOOK AT things FROM a completely OPEN perspective, which by the way is best obtained by NOT assuming nor believing ANY thing?

The only True way to have NO bias is to have NO ASSUMPTIONS nor BELIEFS, in the beginning.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmI happen to be atheist which happens to fit better with this effort and still see that even the institute of science can still be favorable to some minimal beliefs that may be considered, 'religious'.

IF it takes "effort" to NOT be biased then this IS BECAUSE of the BELIEF you are holding onto and maintaining. I suggest to NOT be any thing (other than what you Truly ARE). 'Atheist' is just ANOTHER form of BELIEF. It does NOT matter what is being BELIEVED, EVERY belief has the same disastrous affect of NOT being OPEN.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm The trust of the Big Bang theory to me seems to be a common accepted backbone for many that I think likely has a politic to at least NOT affect others religiously. As to the origin that implies a "wall" concept, I have three threads that I've already opened before that actually argues against the concept. One is on a 'beginning', another on the 'ending' and the third on the middle-type "walls", something like the limits of the 'coldest' temperature, for example.

Are they just more "theories", "models", "guesses", et cetera, or are they VIEWS, which have come from what IS actually SEEN, when LOOKING FROM a Truly OPEN perspective?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmI believe that these are all 'limits' in the way of Calculus and NOT actual real points (or 'walls').

If light diminishes over distance, then WHY TRY and put a "wall" or "limit" up, when OBVIOUSLY the size IS NOT known, and most probably WILL NEVER be known, from observation.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm I don't think that we can scientifically speak of a CERTAIN actual limit but as a perceptual one only.

WHY even THINK about any "limit" anyway? IF one can NOT be SEEN, OBSERVED, then WHY start MAKING ONE UP? WHY even talk about a "limit" as though there is even one?

If a "limit" has NEVER been perceived WHY talk as though one exists?

The answers to these clarifying questions are related to the pre-existing PRESUMPTIONS, which are biased in nature. The 'confirmation biases' in writings ARE OBVIOUS, when LOOKED AT from the Truly OPEN perspective.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pm As such, the Big Bang theory to me only breaks the intended rules of science if or where it assumes the singularity of which its theory was based upon, as a REAL origin. This does NOT, however, mean that the Big Bang theory is 'wrong', to me. It only means that I disagree with any part of it that assumes something certain as an origin without recognition of other explanations that attempt to 'conserve' our local interpretation of observations, that include TIME. This is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle": that we have to judge our perceptions about what we observe here and now as though it were constant in time as well as space. [The prior "Cosmological Principle" means we treat things the same everywhere in space as the same but NOT time.]

We can talk about "principles" and "theories" and give them names, which may or may not sound important, influencing their so called "importance" and talk about IF they are true and correct or not. Or we can just talk about what IS actually True, or Facts, instead.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmThese Cosmological Principles ARE guesses still in that they just propose a starting point of agreement. But it rules out supernatural causation. For instance, we cannot know for certain if at some time in the past that Jesus walked on actual water or that he turned a real loaf of bread into many literally. This is because we cannot recognize this here and now. This is that Cosmological Principle.

No matter what "principle" it is it is just another way of NOT LOOKING AT what IS, which is in agreement with EVERY one.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:28 pmSo, I'll close this thread for fear of losing what I write and move on. But may I ask a question: Do you agree with at least the "Cosmological Principle" as a scientific presumption to proceed with?

No. I do NOT agree with just using guesses to proceed with BECAUSE 'guesses' CAN be WRONG.

I will ask; Do you agree with just using 'what IS' to proceed with?

What IS can NOT be wrong. It can NOT be false, and, It can NOT be incorrect also. What IS are the facts, which, literally, IS the Truth of things. I find it much better to just start from what IS, and then proceed, while always remaining with what IS.

Age wrote:
I find it much better to just start from what IS and then proceed while always remaining with what IS

You cannot acquire new knowledge if you always remain with what is and you therefore have to at some point hypothesise about what might be true but which is not yet known. You can then proceed with such a hypothesis providing that it is testable and capable of potential falsification This is the standard method by which science acquires new knowledge and it is used because it is very reliable and there is no superior method