For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You don't have to tell yourself to fuck off. Just do it!
How do you know your definition is right?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:30 amLaws of nature are permanent by definition.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 5:14 amI'm not speaking about fallibility, but that they are not permanent facets of reality. Not epistemology, but ontology.
By showing other people your error and expanding their perspective I am stunting their mental development?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:36 amYou're not stunting MY mental development. You're stunting the mental development of other people on this forum. You're a pest.Skepdick wrote: Funny, how I keep showing you all your errors (together with the material necessary to correct them) and yet I am "stunting your mental development".
I saw it all along, that's why I am pointing out your error.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:36 amSee? Utter and complete imbecile.Concepts don't allow or forbid anythig. You are anthropomorphising concents.
Now kindly fuck off, retard.
I understand what definitions are much better than you do, dummy.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:49 amYou don't understand what definitions are, dummy. This isn't the first time I said it. It's not even the second time.
Do you need help resuscitating that moral high horse of yours?
What for? I don't kick a man while he's down.
I meant that if there's a multiverse, there's no reason to think that there's lirerally an underlying mechanism that generates stuff. That's likely just an unnecessarily made-up story which leads to major problems.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:06 amThere is no alternative to "There exists an underlying mechanism that generates the state of the universe at every point in time based on what took place at an earlier point in time". It's similar to how "Bachelors are not married" has no alternative. Every "alternative" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. it's not a real alternative. But in order to see that, you'd have to understand what the term "mechanism" means -- which you very clearly don't. The fact that you don't see how such a mechanism exists does not mean that it does not. And the fact that you don't see the proof of its existence does not mean it's something made up.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:58 amAh and you know this for a fact? Too bad you just made up this whole story with an "underlying mechanism".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:32 am Regularities are the surface phenomenon. They are a product of the underlying mechanism that is governed by a set of zero or more laws.
The universe is either governed by laws or it is not. There is no alternative. If it is governed by laws, it means there are limits to what is possible, i.e. it means that not every conceivable universe is possible ( or rather, it means that conceivable universes are not equally possible. ) If there are no laws, it means that there are no limits to what is possible, i.e. every conceivable universe is as possible as every other. There is no third option. It's one or the other.
When we're discussing laws, mechanisms, etc, we're not discussing what is actual. We're discussing what is possible. The actual is merely one possible universe. When we're talking about laws, we're talking about the set of all possible universes ( and how possible they are relative to each other. ) The actual is merely a single aspect of the universe -- its surface. The set of all possible universes is the whole picture. And that's why regularities are a surface phenomenon. They refer to the actual.
You seem to speak like an idiot here. The mind-independent regularities of the natural world remain, doesn't matter if we create abstractions about them or not.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:31 am
Abstractions are concepts and concepts are mental objects, i.e. things that exist within minds. Whatever exists within a mind is mind-dependent, i.e. if all minds ceased to exist it would cease to exist as well. As such, you're claiming, without being aware of it, that laws of nature are subjective, i.e. mind-dependent. You're basically saying that, if all minds ceased to exist, laws of nature would cease to exist as well. That makes laws of nature SUBJECTIVE / MIND-DEPENDENT. You're a subjectivist with respect to laws of nature. You're merely BLIND to it. And you're blind to it because you have an above-average ability to fail to properly understand the implications of your statements.
It does not matter what these abstractions are about. A belief that a train is moving at certain speed is a belief about something that is mind-independent ( trains are mind-independent. ) But the belief itself is mind-dependent. Beliefs exist within minds. No minds, no beliefs.
A simple Google search could provide you with dozens of scientific articles about the potentially changing laws of nature.Give it up, dummy.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes keeps saying "no" even when he means "yes".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:50 pm 'We invent the laws of nature'.
No, we invented and will invent ways to describe nature. Snot hard.
You removed the "moral" part from morality and mean something much broader by it. You still use the word but are talking about something else.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 3:00 am Yes, and? How does that contradict what I'm saying?
No it's not. For example we can say that something is immoral, without working out what the best course of action could be.It is ALWAYS about the best course of action
No it's not. Would you be amoral without formally established laws? Many people wouldn't be.and it is ENTIRELY about laws.
You are knowingly misusing the word, I wonder if we should call that sophistry.It is miles away from your misunderstanding of what morality is, that's for sure.