Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:40 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:42 am
Of course. But believing one of them means believing one of them, not that all three are fictions. If you suppose all three are fictions, then you don't believe any of them at all.



"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness..." ( 2 Peter 3:3-11)

You can't use one fairy tale to prove another.

Well, I'm not so much "proving as just "informing. Your objection, and the objector, are noted in Scripture already. It was expected. That much, this does "prove."

Now, what you do with what you know is no affair of mine, and you certainly won't be answering to me.

Here's a principle that never fails. No one can tell the future!

I wonder if you think that's true even of God.

If he makes predictions he's a liar, whoever he might be. Anybody's free to guess of course. If you know this fellow, ask him to post something current and we can discuss it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:07 pm If he makes predictions he's a liar, whoever he might be.

Heh. It's not a "prediction" when One knows.

But we will see. Because one thing's for sure -- what will be, will be...regardless of what you or I might choose to believe.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmEnjoyed your article, (again) ...

Thank you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pm

To Pythagoreans, the pleasing sounds of a harmonious scale were however of secondary importance – a by-product of the fact that the ‘limiting things’, the mathematical rules, were applied appropriately. The main purpose of the Pythagoreans’ intellectual endeavour was to discover and contemplate these mathematical rules that they believed governed the world, so that they could lead well-ordered, harmonious lives.

I refer to that as the Pythogorean fallacy and it has forever since plagued and corrupted both philosophy and science. Mathematics is nothing more than a human invented method of identifying and describing those aspects of reality that can be counted or measured.

My favourite maths quote is attributed to Einstein: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Quite frankly, anyone who still believes the Pythagorean fallacy, or any form of mathematical Platonism, must believe history started two weeks ago. There really is no need to get all metaphysical because the tool designed to do a job does the job it was designed for. The chances are a better tool will come along to account for new, more accurate data anyway; as history shows.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmMathematical, "rules," have no efficiency to make anything happen, they are merely the recognition of what is, not the cause of what is. The same mistake is made today by those who point to scientific principles as the reason why things are what they are. The scientific principles do not cause or mold reality, they only describe it.

Quite agree.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmTheists like to use the Pythogorean fallacy to argue for creation, as though the laws of physics were something imposed on existence by some omnipotent being, but calling the principles that describe the nature of physical existence, "laws," as something forced on reality, is just a mistake, and not an innocent one.

The thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:31 pm But we will see. Because one thing's for sure -- what will be, will be...regardless of what you or I might choose to believe.

When you are right you are right. I definitely agree!

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:51 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmEnjoyed your article, (again) ...

Thank you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pm

To Pythagoreans, the pleasing sounds of a harmonious scale were however of secondary importance – a by-product of the fact that the ‘limiting things’, the mathematical rules, were applied appropriately. The main purpose of the Pythagoreans’ intellectual endeavour was to discover and contemplate these mathematical rules that they believed governed the world, so that they could lead well-ordered, harmonious lives.

I refer to that as the Pythogorean fallacy and it has forever since plagued and corrupted both philosophy and science. Mathematics is nothing more than a human invented method of identifying and describing those aspects of reality that can be counted or measured.

My favourite maths quote is attributed to Einstein: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Quite frankly, anyone who still believes the Pythagorean fallacy, or any form of mathematical Platonism, must believe history started two weeks ago. There really is no need to get all metaphysical because the tool designed to do a job does the job it was designed for. The chances are a better tool will come along to account for new, more accurate data anyway; as history shows.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmMathematical, "rules," have no efficiency to make anything happen, they are merely the recognition of what is, not the cause of what is. The same mistake is made today by those who point to scientific principles as the reason why things are what they are. The scientific principles do not cause or mold reality, they only describe it.

Quite agree.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pmTheists like to use the Pythogorean fallacy to argue for creation, as though the laws of physics were something imposed on existence by some omnipotent being, but calling the principles that describe the nature of physical existence, "laws," as something forced on reality, is just a mistake, and not an innocent one.

The thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

One author called them, "floating abstractions,"--principles derived from facts used to prove the impossible by divorcing them from the facts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:31 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:07 pm If he makes predictions he's a liar, whoever he might be.

Heh. It's not a "prediction" when One knows.

But we will see. Because one thing's for sure -- what will be, will be...regardless of what you or I might choose to believe.

There is no believer, there is no chooser. Lets stop beating around the bush and have crystal clear clarity on that FACT

Knowing is always and ever 'one with the knowing' in the instantanous moment 'knowing arises'. There's not two separate actions happening, where there is a ''known knower'' and an 'event' that is known to happen before it happens. Knowing or knowledge is only NOW..it's not in the future, nor is it in the past.

Therefore, to claim One knows, is a knowledge on demand REaction/REsponse happening now. ALL narrative, aka story has about as much reality to it's existence..as does the idea of yesterday, or one minute ago.

Knowledge that can be commanded or demanded is what gives the illusory sense of continuity to a knowledge that events are happening or have ever happened.. Reality is a dream dreamt by no one. Nothing happens in a dream, because the dream is all there is, it's all that's known.

And that's why you are a liar and a conman. You are like a man in the oasis thirsty for a mirage. People who believe in mirages and mistake them to be reality are an embarrassment not only to themselves, but to the entire group of intelligent people that make up most of human society. You may be a nice person, but your beliefs are wrong and they are an outdated insult to modern day human intelligence.

Just popping in to remind you, hope you don't mind. I'm sure you are a very understanding, forgiving, kind of person.

I used to believe in all kinds of nonsense myself, but after years of intelligent, diligent and exhaustive clear headed thinking research.
I came face to face with the stark truth that shocked every fiber of my being to the core. . And from that moment on .. I have never looked back, not once. There is no personal self, there is no personal self behind me, there is no personal self in front of me, except as an illusory story.

You are going to die one day, you will never know death, so to call what you cannot possible know ever ''An eternal life'' is ridiculously ignorant and very very silly.


.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:31 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:07 pm If he makes predictions he's a liar, whoever he might be.

Heh. It's not a "prediction" when One knows.

But we will see. Because one thing's for sure -- what will be, will be...regardless of what you or I might choose to believe.

There is no believer, there is no chooser. Lets stop beating around the bush and have crystal clear clarity on that FACT

I won't really have "clear clarity" if you don't write in ALL CAPS.

I'm sure you are a very understanding, forgiving, kind of person.

In no way better than anybody else, and very likely worse than many, by nature. But knowing God makes one different from what one otherwise would have been. If I'm "kind" at all, it would only be because of the consciousness of the debt I have been forgiven.

There is no personal self,

Well, that sort of claim is always incoherent, even were we to take it to be true. For if that's true, there's no "me" to be "a person," as you claim, and no "you" to say it...so it is not being said at all.

I'm amazed you can't see that...but of course, there's no "you" to "see" that, so I guess that makes sense.

Besides, I thought you were fed up and finished with me...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:49 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:51 pmThe thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

One author called them, "floating abstractions,"--principles derived from facts used to prove the impossible by divorcing them from the facts.

Ayn Rand isn't best known for her philosophy of science, and I suspect you know her oeuvre better than I. Principles derived from facts is bog standard science. If you take something as foundational as Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, for example, then force is the principle derived from the measurable mass and acceleration. By all means call force a floating abstraction; the source could be gravity, electromagnetism or a tractor, but I don't get the "prove the impossible" bit.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:40 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:49 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:51 pmThe thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

One author called them, "floating abstractions,"--principles derived from facts used to prove the impossible by divorcing them from the facts.

Ayn Rand isn't best known for her philosophy of science, and I suspect you know her oeuvre better than I. Principles derived from facts is bog standard science. If you take something as foundational as Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, for example, then force is the principle derived from the measurable mass and acceleration. By all means call force a floating abstraction; the source could be gravity, electromagnetism or a tractor, but I don't get the "prove the impossible" bit.

Your examples are all true abstractions because they apply the principle to observable phenomena. Force only pertains to actual entities with mass and acceleration. If you attribute existence itself or the nature of life, for example, to some mystical, "force," that is a floating abstraction. It uses the concept as though it identified something that existed on its own, dropping the fact that, sans actual entities, there is no force.

But actually I was referring to your example:

The thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

Math functions can certainly be understood without actual facts, that is, without things that can actually be counted or measured, but it is understood they are only abstactions as a method of identifying and reasoning about actual things that can be counted or measured, but numbers have no existence or meaning on their own as metaphysical existents. There are no wild 3's or fractions, or derivatives running around in the wild. The religious and superstitious frequently refer to math elements as thought they had independent ontological existence. That's a floating abstraction.

Rand, by the way, was totally taken in by the Pythagorean fallacy, even to identifying universal concepts in terms of measurement. Even a blind pig finds a nut sometimes.

What will be, will be is so foundational, so mundane it's applicable to anything regarding any future event even those who are certain to know what's going to happen 5000 years from now or what happens after death. It's a phrase which can express both certainty as rendered by a theist or one summarizing complete ignorance about the future. It's not the same, for instance, as saying we'll see what we shall see which is much more open-ended. It's not something a theist would say since that would mean expressing doubt.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:58 am What will be, will be is so foundational, so mundane it's applicable to anything regarding any future event even those who are certain to know what's going to happen 5000 years from now or what happens after death. It's a phrase which can express both certainty as rendered by a theist or one summarizing complete ignorance about the future. It's not the same, for instance, as saying we'll see what we shall see which is much more open-ended. It's not something a theist would say since that would mean expressing doubt.

Some years ago I was extremely drunk after a work piss up, and singing que sera sera on the balcony of Adl Casino, and some bloke called out "that's not right.."

I went back inside and a woman said to me, "sir you are very drunk." to which i replied "I am slaughtered."

..I was quite certain I would just leave at that point. But no - they decided to drag me out, the bruises showed the next day. Fuckwits.

I hate gamblers..

C_A_SIN_O

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:10 pm

The thing about maths is that while it can be used to explore reality, once the empirically discovered variables are plugged in, it can also be done without anything so tawdry as a fact intervening. That makes it very attractive to theists.

Math functions can certainly be understood without actual facts, that is, without things that can actually be counted or measured, but it is understood they are only abstactions as a method of identifying and reasoning about actual things that can be counted or measured, but numbers have no existence or meaning on their own as metaphysical existents. There are no wild 3's or fractions, or derivatives running around in the wild. The religious and superstitious frequently refer to math elements as thought they had independent ontological existence. That's a floating abstraction.

What is the pigshit about 'the religious' like ALL theists are dumb fucks?

..are you a BIGOT?

There are plenty of theists that are physicists etc.. that would own you as their pussy cat. One of which "invented" the calendar that we use today.

What two planets in our Solar system revolve in an opposite direction on their axis to ALL the others?

Their names end in two letters the ones who we are, and we own you.

U R not WORTH.Y of US.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:21 pm
I'm amazed you can't see that...but of course, there's no "you" to "see" that, so I guess that makes sense.

I see it...but do you. I don't think you do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:21 pmBesides, I thought you were fed up and finished with me...

You wish.

I'm addressing the nonsense that is a timeless lie. Namely, Religious ideas.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:13 am What is the pigshit about 'the religious' like ALL theists are dumb fucks?

I don't think so. If they were, it would not be their fault they believe the nonsense they do.

But all the religious, including theists, choose to believe what there is neither evidence or non-contradictory reason for to evade the requirements of reality to learn the truth and live by it. The sad thing is that so many very intelligent people can so easily be taken in.

The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind! --H.L. Mencken

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:58 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:13 am What is the pigshit about 'the religious' like ALL theists are dumb fucks?

I don't think so. If they were, it would not be their fault they believe the nonsense they do.

But all the religious, including theists, choose to believe what there is neither evidence or non-contradictory reason for to evade the requirements of reality to learn the truth and live by it. The sad thing is that so many very intelligent people can so easily be taken in.

The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind! --H.L. Mencken

Am I supposed to be drilled with quotes from wankers that you espouse to for time immemorial?

I still only C nonsense from U.

AGAIN.

What two planets in our Solar system revolve in an opposite direction on their axis to ALL the others?

Their names end in two letters the ones who we are, and we own you.

R U WORTH.Y of US?