IS and OUGHT

[henry quirk]

I am not going to read this whole forum searching for the exact words you have used.

So instead, if you do not agree with what I have written above here, then explain what you have said in regards to what 'rights' you think or believe you do have, in regards to if someone just touches 'your toothpick'.

Wait a minute: you can't back your claim against me with evidence, but you still expect to defend myself against the claim?



Dream on, Age.

*

Would you say that you have the 'right', or even 'ought', to take the life, liberty, and/or property of another if they threaten to take your life, liberty, and/or property?

As my good friend, the absent lacewing, pointed out: I done went over all this about 5,000 times. Not seein' a reason to go over again, with you. Now, I posted sumthin' for Astro Cat, up-thread, that might very well lead she and me to discussn' self-defense. If we do, pay attention. Till then...

[Age]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

Where is Lerner's evidence that the big bang didn't happen - even though it's possible and probable that it didn't happen in quite the way we think.

There will always be 'bangs' happening, and some bigger, and smaller, than other ones, but there could NOT have been 'one' from which EVERY thing came from. A beginning of Everything is IMPOSSIBLE, logically and empirically.

Until he actually has evidence, real evidence, not the presumed kind, he's just another guy trying to flog a pet theory which wasn't even his to begin with.

That absolutely Everything came from a 'bang', generally known as the 'big bang' is a 'theory'.

From what the word 'Universe' means ,or refers to, then it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for 'a beginning of Everything'. This is NOT a 'theory'. This is just a Fact. Now, if anyone wants to change the word 'Universe' to mean or refer to something other than Everything, then by all means to do that, but what is the word or term that you want to use that means or refers to absolutely 'Everything'? Whatever word you choose to refer to Everything, ALL-THERE-IS, or TOTALITY, then there STILL was NO 'bang', which was 'the beginning' of 'THAT'.

If the universe is infinitely old then what is the function of entropy in its gradual erosion of order?

'Infinitely old' is nonsensical.

'Entropy' is a made up word or term to describe the so-called 'disorder' of 'things' WITHIN the Universe, Itself.

Besides the Universe, Itself, and more precisely what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, that is; 'matter', and, 'space', absolutely EVERY 'thing' else comes into Existence, exists, and then exits. 'Entropy' is a word to describe the perceived 'ending' of a 'things life', or the 'exiting' of 'its existence'.

Examples and/or further elaboration can be given if anyone is interested.

To maintain a universe forever it would have to be the opposite of what its usual definition is, viz., instead of declining into disorder, maintaining order.

The words 'order' and 'disorder' are words that are extremely relative in relation to when they are perceived to actually change and occur, and words or terms like; 'declining into disorder' and 'maintaining order' are things that only occur when looking at an absolutely tiny perspective of things.

When looking at the WHOLE instead, the perspective of things changes, and what the actual and irrefutable Truth can be clearly seen, crystal clearly too I will add.

'things' do NOT 'maintain' NOR 'decline' in 'order'. That is; they do not get to magical 'halfway mark' or 'some point', and then just start 'declining'. 'things', within the Universe, however, just CHANGE, in a particular 'order'. The Universe, Itself, although is ALWAYS CHANGING in shape and form also, It NEVER came 'into' Existence, NOR EVER exits Existence, like all the other 'things' do.

Since time is related to entropy, what is the function of time in such a universe.

'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were still VERY CONFUSED about what the 'time' word meant or was referring to, EXACTLY.

So, in regards to what you write here, what does the 'time' word mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

Meanwhile, while we wait, this one and only infinite and eternal Universe existing 'now' is ALWAYS CHANGING in the NOW. Always 'has' and always 'will', or in other words; ALWAYS IS.

To claim the universe being "infinitely old" amounts to a paradox of cosmic proportions since the universe, having always existed, would be ageless without reference to any time scale.

Well you were the only one here who brought up the nonsensical term 'infinitely old'. So, if you want to counter or refute that claim or term, then 'you' are only refuting or countering "yourself" here. Which, by the way, there is a specific term for this type of so-called 'arguing' that most, if not all, of the
posters here would already recognized, but for those readers who do not it is sometimes known as 'a straw man'.

"Old" doesn't apply to such a universe.

OF COURSE NOT. The word 'eternal' removed the word 'old' completely, or absolutely.

And, if anyone wants to get right down to the sometimes called 'nitty-gritty' of things 'old' does not even apply to things like 'you', human beings, either. There are, obviously, 'older' and 'newer', but 'old' and 'new' are actually 'too relative' to have any real 'truth' to them.

It always is and never ceases to be. Every single imbalance would need to be corrected to forever allow it to maintain itself...

If an 'imbalance' is caused or created, then, as you say, it 'needs to be' corrected, and as such 'it is' corrected. For example, if any virus grows or expands too quickly or too big and in the process ends up destroying or killing 'its host', then the 'virus' also ends, and thus the imbalance is corrected. One just needs to change the word 'virus' to 'human beings', and 'host' to 'earth', to see this play out 'in real', up to the days when is was being written.

a kind of counter-entropy negating the slow insurgence of disorder to its inevitable conclusion.

Just my thoughts!

Countering the 'ageing-process' of 'things', within the Universe, has not yet been found or formulated. But, considering what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe actual works, there could NOT be and thus IS NO 'entropy' causing any slow insurgency of so-called 'disorder' to some imagined, perceived, assumed, nor believed 'inevitable conclusion'.

The Universe IS ALWAYS.

[Age]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

It is an example of the fact that exactly the same evidence can support different hypotheses. So is this:

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

I've mentioned Thomas Kuhn in this thread before. You can read my short Philosophy Now biography of Kuhn here:https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
For current purposes, this is the relevant bit:

Among the most controversial aspects of Kuhn’s model of science, is his claim that different paradigms are ‘incommensurable’. That is to say, in extreme cases, there can be no meaningful dialogue between scientists who hold the different perspectives.

It is solely just the 'holding' of a perspective why NO meaningful dialogue can take place. So, as I have been saying and explaining here, take away the BELIEFS, and just start looking at what is actually True, Right, and Correct ONLY, then the Truly meaningful answers in Life can be, and are, found and SEEN. Through this One perspective thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is revealed.

That the same evidence can inspire different worldviews is often illustrated by the duck/rabbit illusion.

It is the 'holding' of BELIEFS, and/or the ASSUMING that one has already obtained 'the truth about things', BEFORE they have actually obtained the proof, which is what causes disagreements or disputes, and where illusion or disillusionment lies.

The point Kuhn was making is that if you’re talking about a duck, you are going to make no sense to someone seeing a rabbit. String Theorists look at the universe and see eleven dimensions, whereas according to Loop Quantum Gravity, there are only four.

And, conversely NEITHER of them have YET been proven correct so WHY do these people 'hold' completely DIFFERENT views or perspectives of the EXACT SAME irrefutable 'thing'?

Why even bother 'holding onto' a view that could well be False, Wrong, or Incorrect anyway?

This raises another issue for which Kuhn’s paradigm model is criticised. How do you decide whether you are looking at a duck or a rabbit?

As I keep informing you, it is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to decide whether you are looking at a duck or a rabbit. Whichever one you 'see' is the one you see, but the 'one' you are looking at is the one that you have the proof for, or can prove True.

Now, if two or more people ARE 'seeing' different things, then that is perfectly normal and fine. How ALL things are 'seen' is solely because of past experiences. But what 'it' IS that is being 'looked at' is the one that EVERY one could agree on and accept, which then becomes what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct. And, in the scenario or example above what IS being 'looked at' is a picture, or lines drawn. That IS what is being LOOKED AT.

What 'you', human beings, 'see' is NOT necessarily what 'it' ACTUALLY IS. But what 'things' actually ARE can be OBSERVED, LOOKED AT, and SEEN for what they REALLY and Truly ARE, EXACTLY.

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways.

NO 'theory' is needed for this phenomena. That 'you', adult human beings, MISINTERPRET 'things' can be CLEARLY OBSERVED and SEEN throughout ALL of your 'disagreements' and 'disputes', of which the proof for can be CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED throughout this forum, let alone throughout a lot of known human history.

Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had.

Did one NEED to 'argue' for this. I thought this was just common and obvious knowledge.

This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”

But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, AND, how objectivity, or actual and irrefutable Truth is arrived at or ascertained is through that same process.

For those who are Truly interested in learning and understanding this, then they would surely KNOW what to do by now.

As for above;

Surely by now it is KNOWN that 'theories' are nothing more than just guesses or assumptions about what 'could' be true and right, and that 'evidence' is NOT proof and that people can and do use so-called 'evidence' to 'try to' back up and support completely differing and even conflicting views, beliefs, or assumptions. As has already been discussed, the exact same 'evidence' of the sun appearing to revolve around the earth was used to 'try to' back up and support the view, belief, or assumption that the sun revolves around the earth, and, that the earth revolves around the sun. There is only One Truth, and what that ACTUALLY IS is uncovered, found, SEEN, understood, and KNOWN through obtaining an 'objective' view of things.

Again, WHY even bother with assumptions and guesses ['theories] when one can just LOOK AT and SEE what IS actually and irrefutable True instead?

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN above in what "kuhn" conceded in all of these differing 'theories' and different 'conclusions' is this way of 'looking' and 'seeing' things has REALLY been just a complete waste of time.

[Age]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

I'm almost fully through the article, and thanks for posting Henry, really interesting.

From what I am reading it appears to be suggesting that red shift is simply how light behaves at such great distances, rather than an effect of an expanding universe. Is this correct?

The 'red shift' data shows things expanding or moving away from each other. The more 'red shift' there is is also said to be showing further back in the past, which, obviously, there was, in a sense, more or faster 'expansion', 'back then' closer to after 'inflation' of what is called the 'big bang'.

Since then it appears we had no way to comphrehend\test how the wavelength of light changes over such a great distance...that is, here there is no doppler effect, since the universe is not actually expanding in all directions - no relative change to us. Obviously there are areas where galaxys are moving towards and away and doppler effect remains, including on the revolutuion of the galaxy relative to us.
Aha! I was on da money!

When things/objects are moving in circular fashion around other things/objects then there will be 'red' and 'blue' shift. Solar systems and galaxies move in circular motion around. WHILE still taking into account of inflation/expansion after one of the many 'bangs' that exist within the Universe, Itself. 'Red shift' data shows when galaxies are moving, in their circular motion, away from 'us', the observer, and 'blue shift' showing when they are coming towards us, again whilst in their circular motion, and why there is more 'red shift', further back in time, is just because ALL things were expanding or moving away from each other, and the further back we are 'looking' the more or faster 'expansion' is just being 'seen'.

[attofishpi]

Read the article

[Age]

After thinking about it, it seems to me that there are two things that motivate our actions. One is the avoidance of pain, or physical discomfort. For instance, we eat to eliminate the unpleasant sensation of hunger. Most of our immediate survival needs seem to be attended to through this process of reacting to discomfort or pain. It is how most living creatures function with regard to their personal survival.

It has already been said that human beings do things to either 'reduce pain' or 'increase pleasure'.

One of the reasons for our great success as a species is our ability to create very sophisticated social structures which necessitate our behaving in specific ways, both towards each other and in cooperation with each other. The avoidance of physical discomfort is not normally what motivates our social behaviour. We are a very emotional species, and the avoidance of emotional discomfort probably plays a major part in our social behaviour. It seems to me that a component of this emotionally driven behaviour is a need to believe there is a reason for our actions. Rationality alone is very often not enough. I think this because, despite our being extremely rational creatures, many of us believe things that are not in the least rational, and these beliefs are very often what we act upon. The point is, it works.

For society to function, we need to have beliefs that inform us how we ought to behave. It doesn’t matter whether the beliefs make sense, we just need to believe. A belief in God who is beyond our understanding is no more powerful than a belief in right and wrong for its own sake that we can’t logically account for.

But, like I already said, this is only how it seems to me.

Adult human beings do NOT 'need' to believe things. But, they have grown up to BELIEVE that they do.

[Age]

On the basis of accepting an effect as the proof of an inferred cause’s intangible existence, as science does, then God is also credible.

Only if you start from the position that God only has to will something for it to be tha case. If religion wants the respect that science has, it is not enough to say that it is plausible that God created the world, it would also need to be able to explain how he created it.

All matter and energy in the universe instantly expanded from a infinitesimally small point.

And you have actual proof of this, correct?

Also, what does 'an infinitesimally small point' even mean or refer to EXACTLY?

How long was 'this point' existing for, BEFORE it started expanding? And, what made 'this point' expand?

I guess that explains it for scientists, with some fancy footwork thrown in.

- God is everywhere all the time. (as explained by Christianity)
- Dark matter is everywhere all the time. (as explained by science)

What, exactly, are these two 'things', to you?

And, how can 'dark matter' be everywhere, when there are other things existing?

- Science rejects the first based on what science knows (God everywhere all the time, no. But that's okay for dark matter.)
- Christianity says maybe to the second. (Dark matter, if it exists at all, exists as an aspect of God.)

- Wait a minute … which one is the religion?

Good point.

It could be said and argued that any belief in some 'thing' being true, which has NOT YET been proved true, is 'a religion'.

Putting faith in any 'thing' being true, before it is proved true, could be said to be 'a religion'.

[Age]

- Wait a minute … which one is the religion?

The one that imagines there was conscious intention behind it all.

Is this metric that you apply to religion determined by both science and religion, and does this metric also apply to science?

If it does not apply to science, how does science account for the source of what science says happened in the beginning?

Or, does science quibble and say there never was a beginning ... with self-referential, circular proof of course.

Saying, and assuming or believing that; "All matter and energy in the universe instantly expanded from a infinitesimally small point.", leads to unanswerable questions, which I posed and asked you above.

[Belinda]

So I've been told. Mark is the earliest Gospel at 40 years after his death.I am not sure but it's easy to look it up.

It just seems odd that the most significant human being to ever walk the earth only became significant in retrospect. On the other hand, dying young can be a great career move in becoming a legend.

Jesus maybe would have remained the leader of a Palestinian sect of Judaism if Paul and subsequently Constantine had not made Christianity political.

[Age]

...this is only how it seems to me.

Well, the idea that we are motivated by the avoidance of pain is fundamentally Sigmund Freud's pleasure principle; "sophisticated social structures" sound like Émile Durkheim's collective consciousness and that "beliefs are very often what we act upon. The point is, it works." is the rationale behind Paul Feyerabend's methodological anarchy. So you're in good company. The important thing is that whatever we think, it is as you say "only how it seems to me".
The story of Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi is central to western philosophy, and by extension western science. The gist is that Socrates found out that the Oracle had identified him as the wisest person in Greece. On hearing this Socrates protests 'How can that be? I know nothing' and that's the lightbulb moment when the reader is meant to realise that people who claim to know - don't.

But, if I KNOW that thus sun appeared in the sky in what was classed as 'yesterday', THEN I KNOW 'this'.

Saying, 'I KNOW nothing', is an oxymoron or a self-refuting claim. Obviously, if one KNOWS that they, supposedly, KNOW nothing, then they KNOW one thing, at least.

And, if we want to delve deeper into this, it could be argued that there is absolutely nothing 'we' KNOW, because absolutely everything could just be a figment of some imagination. BUT, the one thing that can be KNOWN, for sure or for certain, are the 'thoughts' arising. Again, of course, EVERY thought could be wrong or just of some imagined 'thing', but that 'thoughts' exist can NOT be refuted.

There's very little that we know for certain and I would certainly agree that "a component of this emotionally driven behaviour is a need to believe there is a reason for our actions". All I would add is that there is a certain cerebral weakness that compels the hard of thinking to insist their beliefs amount to knowledge.

I would further add that just having 'beliefs', themselves, is a form of DISTORTED thinking, itself. And, to that, it could be said that only the Truly cerebral weak ones are the ones that feel a need to have and hold 'beliefs', and then to 'try to' find anything that might be able to back up and support those 'beliefs' shows and reveals just how DISTORTED some thinking REALLY IS.

[Belinda]

Harbal wrote:

For society to function, we need to have beliefs that inform us how we ought to behave. It doesn’t matter whether the beliefs make sense, we just need to believe. A belief in God who is beyond our understanding is no more powerful than a belief in right and wrong for its own sake that we can’t logically account for.

I agree. However we can still believe in God without attributing all-powerful to God, and accept that God is psychological i.e. positive attitude towards what is good and true, and stop believing God is substantial or material.

The moral code that is generally the approved moral code is Abrahamic. The historical basis of the Abrahamic moral code is Axial Age, around 800-200 BCE. I believe the code, stripped of its supernatural accoutrements, still functions to bring relative peace and prosperity with universal benefits. The United Nations Organisation is the best institutional manifestation of the moral code extant today.

The Axial Age (also called Axis Age) is the period when, roughly at the same time around most of the inhabited world, the great intellectual, philosophical, and religious systems that came to shape subsequent human society and culture emerged—with the ancient Greek philosophers, Indian metaphysicians and logicians (who articulated the great traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism), Persian Zoroastrianism, the Hebrew Prophets, the “Hundred Schools” (most notably Confucianism and Daoism) of ancient China….These are only some of the representative Axial traditions that emerged and took root during that time. The phrase originated with the German psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers, who noted that during this period there was a shift—or a turn, as if on an axis—away from more predominantly localized concerns and toward transcendence.

Britannica

[Age]

All I would add is that there is a certain cerebral weakness that compels the hard of thinking to insist their beliefs amount to knowledge.

I suppose that is what I am saying, or at least that people act upon their beliefs as if they were knowledge.

And this is WHY I question those with 'beliefs', 'WHY have or hold 'beliefs' in the beginning?'

After all they only get in the way and prevent and stop thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED.

I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that human beings have an innate tendency to invest in belief systems, and this tendency is present in us in order to facilitate social cohesion.

What do you mean by this exactly?

What 'beliefs' do new born and younger human beings 'invest in'?

WHY would some, supposed, 'innate tendency' to invest in the belief-system, supposedly, 'facilitate social cohesion'?

I would say the EXACT OPPOSITE could be argued to be True. That is; the DIFFERENT 'beliefs' that adult human beings have and HOLD ONTO is a huge cause of what 'creates or facilitates social conflict, discord, and/or dissension.

From what I have observed people can live very simply and very easily, peacefully, and in harmony, WITHOUT 'beliefs'.

It was probably essential in the past that all the members of a tribe or society believed the same thing, which amounted to having a shared religion.

In the very earliest stages of human beings would there really have been a necessity to believe ANY 'thing'?

And, in the stages of evolution where 'you', posters, here are, what are the 'thing/s', which are 'essential' for 'you' to 'believe'?

For example, what is the 'same thing', which all of the members of the human species, in the days when this is being written, 'believe'?

And, if it was NOT essential for the tribe or society, in the days when this was being written, then WHY was it 'in the past', and at what point did it NOT become essential? Also, if it is an 'innate' tendency to 'invest in' the 'belief-system', then the 'belief-system' would exist ALWAYS, and would ALWAYS be 'needed'.

Which, may well be VERY True, and some 'thing' that will come-to-be REVEALED, later on. Or, earlier if ANY one is Truly interested in discussing this here now.

Not least because there can then be an imposed religious authority. This no longer seems to be the case in modern Western societies, and there isn't the same pressure on us to believe in a particulat religious doctrine, yet we still can't abandon our instinctive predisposition towards having religious beliefs.

To me, a 'religious belief' can also exist in the 'scientific community' where and when the words of "others" are 'believed' to be true, and the 'faith' in those "others" is so strong that people then go out to 'try to' prove them 'right'. It all depends on how much one looks UP TO the 'words' of "another" or not.

At least some of us don't seem to be able to abandon it, and this has manifested itself in the vast array of weird and wonderful beliefs we come across today.

Like, for example, the 'belief' that the Universe DID BEGIN and IS EXPANDING, and/or the 'belief' that God DOES or DOES NOT 'exist'.

A 'belief' in either can be classed and termed a 'religious belief'. The word 'religious', however, is usually interpreted to mean in one way only.

[Age]

Do you think as an individual abandoning a belief in a God is beneficial? If so, how?

I suppose it depends on what the belief entails. I can imagine an individual's experience of life being enhanced by their belief in God. It probably wouldn't be beneficial for such a person to abandon his belief.

So if the belief is in Christianity, should that person abandon their belief?

WHY have or hold ANY 'beliefs', IN THE BEGINNING?

[Age]

So if the belief is in Christianity, should that person abandon their belief?

Should they abandon the belief in order to achieve what?

Well, that's your decision. You stated that it depends on what the belief entails, so I suggested Christianity. Is there a benefit for a Christian to abandon their belief in God?

Yes.

[Age]

So I've been told. Mark is the earliest Gospel at 40 years after his death.I am not sure but it's easy to look it up.

It just seems odd that the most significant human being to ever walk the earth only became significant in retrospect. On the other hand, dying young can be a great career move in becoming a legend.

I am NOT fully savvy to the story, but what I recall is "jesus christ" was 'known', or said, 'to come', BEFORE a baby, which was named "jesus christ", was born. Just like it is 'known', and said, that there is a 'second coming of jesus', which was still 'yet to come', to 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written.

And, being aware of 'this' allows an explanation of WHY that human being, from baby to adult hood, lived the way it did, and has been written about, the way it has.