The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 3:19 pm Once again, for the neutral reader, since Immanuel Can is perhaps, because of misunderstanding, explicitly misrepresenting my position.

If we break things down to their most fundamental “action,” “passive state,” or condition, existence (or the universe) is progressing. I don’t attribute a direction to that progression, even though “forward” is the intuitive metaphor.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:56 pm Once again, for the neutral observer,

I am doing everything in my power not to address the interlocutor directly. I may be new here, but I am not new to philosophy. I do not understand what is happening on this philosophy forum. It is very good, but concerning the interlocutor in question, I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word — consistently (and explicitly) posted my current philosophical position (meaning there's an evidential record) — so why is an interlocutor refusing to acknowledge that semantic point and misrepresenting my position? Do they not realise there's empirical evidence?

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:56 pm Once again, for the neutral observer, I am doing everything in my power not to address the interlocutor directly. I may be new here, but I am not new to philosophy. I do not understand what is happening on this philosophy forum. It is very good, but concerning the interlocutor in question, I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word — consistently (and explicitly) posted my current philosophical position (meaning there's an evidential record) — so why is an interlocutor refusing to acknowledge that semantic point and misrepresenting my position? Do they not realise there's empirical evidence?

I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:24 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:56 pm Once again, for the neutral observer, I am doing everything in my power not to address the interlocutor directly. I may be new here, but I am not new to philosophy. I do not understand what is happening on this philosophy forum. It is very good, but concerning the interlocutor in question, I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word — consistently (and explicitly) posted my current philosophical position (meaning there's an evidential record) — so why is an interlocutor refusing to acknowledge that semantic point and misrepresenting my position? Do they not realise there's empirical evidence?

That interlocutor is a notorious buffoon, but quite why you chose that hill to die on mystifies me. You let him divert you into an unimportant segue instead of simply reconsidering the ambiguous phrasing. I don't agree with your interpretation of your dictionary sources and I think you would have been wiser to re-word your point.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 1:13 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:55 am ...this does not mean that the quantum level of reality is random, it is enough that it might be.

Hardly. You don't even know whether or not it "might be."

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:36 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:24 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:56 pm Once again, for the neutral observer, I am doing everything in my power not to address the interlocutor directly. I may be new here, but I am not new to philosophy. I do not understand what is happening on this philosophy forum. It is very good, but concerning the interlocutor in question, I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word — consistently (and explicitly) posted my current philosophical position (meaning there's an evidential record) — so why is an interlocutor refusing to acknowledge that semantic point and misrepresenting my position? Do they not realise there's empirical evidence?

That interlocutor is a notorious buffoon, but quite why you chose that hill to die on mystifies me. You let him divert you into an unimportant segue instead of simply reconsidering the ambiguous phrasing. I don't agree with your interpretation of your dictionary sources and I think you would have been wiser to re-word your point.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 1:13 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:55 am ...this does not mean that the quantum level of reality is random, it is enough that it might be.

Hardly. You don't even know whether or not it "might be."

I know whether or not the quantum level of reality might be random with the same 100% certainty that you know it might not.

The fact that it could be either is enough to make any proof of god based on an uncaused cause unsound.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:28 pm Once again, the neutral observer, for the record and for factual purposes, I repeat:

I have cited three reputable dictionaries that explicitly do not contradict my use of a word.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:59 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:36 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:24 pm

That interlocutor is a notorious buffoon, but quite why you chose that hill to die on mystifies me. You let him divert you into an unimportant segue instead of simply reconsidering the ambiguous phrasing. I don't agree with your interpretation of your dictionary sources and I think you would have been wiser to re-word your point.

Yes, Immauel Can is annoying, and yes he is also talentless because he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he has made any mistake of reasoning, but at the end of the day the point that got you into the mess is at best banal.

Randomness versus clockwork causation being mere human interpretations of a world that progresses along a timeline whether we like it or nor certainly doesn't make them equivalent viewpoints, and without that it cannot make the question irrelevant. Hypothesising some mystical alternative way of seeing the world isn't an argument that the current way is unwise or mistaken.

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Sadly you will rmeain are no better than IC if you are going to use an obequious chatbot to tell you what a smart boy you are.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:59 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:36 pm

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Sadly you will rmeain are no better than IC if you are going to use an obequious chatbot to tell you what a smart boy you are.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:16 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:59 pm

Sadly you will rmeain are no better than IC if you are going to use an obequious chatbot to tell you what a smart boy you are.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh. There's something about autists that makes them an easy victim of this reliance on AI bots problem that is emerging. Understanding whether the word progress is directional in nature isn't something any capable adult would need Copilot for and you should stop doing that sort of thing if you are able before, you become unable to.

Why do you use the word epistemology so clumsily and so often?

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:16 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:07 pm

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh. There's something about autists that makes them an easy victim of this reliance on AI bots problem that is emerging. Understanding whether the word progress is directional in nature isn't something any capable adult would need Copilot for and you should stop doing that sort of thing if you are able before, you become unable to.

Why do you use the word epistemology so clumsily and so often?

My point is proven; you are a detractor, and a vitriolic one at that.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:38 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:16 pm
I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh. There's something about autists that makes them an easy victim of this reliance on AI bots problem that is emerging. Understanding whether the word progress is directional in nature isn't something any capable adult would need Copilot for and you should stop doing that sort of thing if you are able before, you become unable to.

Why do you use the word epistemology so clumsily and so often?

My point is proven; you are a detractor, and a vitriolic one at that.

No I'm not, I just gave you the true answer to your question. You asked a question about yourself, you got an answer about yourself. Being thin-skinned about that is a you problem.