I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

You have a point! :up:

Nonetheless, there's nothing more useful than truths, oui?

you're cluttering up the forum with a lot of nonsens — Wayfarer

I hadta get this off my chest! A thousand apologies if it's balderdash!

:fire:

Excellent point! Thanks for making me realize that!

Descartes's cogito ergo sum can be rephrased as the self-contradictory statement I'm not thinking. or thereabouts!

Well, I must confess that my understanding of Wittgenstein is wanting in a lot of ways. My instincts, however, inform me that he's not entirely correct about the relationship between language and philosophy.

If we do nothing more than just extend his argument, semantics becomes irrelevant (it drops out of consideration) and all we're left with is syntax. I don't how I can even say this without shooting myself in the foot but that's how my brain understands Wittgenstein. We're basically like computers - all syntax, no semantics.

Thanks a lot for the response! Do cut me some slack here.

Yes, Nick Bostrom. Transhumanist and firm believer that we have more to fear of AI than environmental, natural chaos, rapidly growing. Nick Bostrom is a guy who had severe mental problems. He declared to have been closed up in himself and had social problems and his escape in theoretical physics (which resulted in no considerable contributions) and AI did result in an attitude that made him think we live in a simulation and the "super" intelligences springing off from computer developments will be able to take over. What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago. There is an essential difference between illusion and reality though a clear-cut division between the two can't be given and illusion and reality certainly influence each other. — Hillary

Most intriguing!

There's a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. — Oscar Levant

Psychosis, in psychiatry, is defined as the inabilty to distinguish the real from the unreal! So, you're on the right track, mon ami!

Hyperreality...

Maybe you should read some Baudrillard? — Christoffer

Muchas gracias señor/señorita for the suggestion.

Would you like to discuss hyperreality? I've come across the idea in connection with the use of psychedelics. It's been described by people who were tripping as "realer than real". That makes it possible that this world we experience as normal people not under the influence of mind-bending drugs is a simulation/illusion; in a sense, with mind-altering drugs, we wake up and catch a glimpse of the real world!

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree?

Depends on your definition of 'physical' I suppose. It is very arguably not an object, but if it has a name, it also arguably is an object.
The dot cannot be used to transfer information faster than light.

A moiré pattern also can move at well over light speed without the need to stand a million km from it.

It would be interesting to work out exactly what the cat would see as the faster-than-light red dot approached it and then passed it by. Just like you can't hear a supersonic jet coming, you also cannot see the dot coming as it outruns the light it emits. — noAxioms

These are the limits of my understanding. Interesting nevertheless.

I was just drawing a conclusion that seemed to be staring me in the face! "Something" (the red dot) has a measurable speed that's greater than c. Ergo, it can't be physical (all matter & energy follows the cosmic speed limit c).

How would you characterize the nature of the red dot whose speed exceeds c? The red dot is like time to me - can be measured, but quid sit? No clear answer.

Gracias for replying.

damaged goods — Nickolasgaspar

After Neo kicked my ass, I haven't been the same! :smile:

Such a god would be a moron. — universeness

:lol:

I haven't yet managed to develop a foolproof method to tell the difference between idiots, fiends & innocents ! Thus my predicament I suppose! :groan:

Update

Statement A self-destructs when it's applied to itself. It appears that, like with the liar sentence (this sentence is false), this is a very different and unique application of self-reference, self-referential situations generally demolish (Gödel's incompleteness theorems are a good example) rather than construct (sentence A is meant to provide a foolproof foundation for philosophy).

Well I still don’t understand it — javi2541997

You're kidding, right?

:lol:

What you say is debatable! Wittgenstein was specifically concerned about language in relation to philosophy. He, as far as I can tell, declared, with confidence I might add, that all philosophical issues were, get this, pseudo-problems - they were simply artifacts, so to speak, of language (linguistically-generated illusions)

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

I haven't been able to get my hands on both of his books, but that's the gist of Wittgensteinism in my humble opinion.

Part of the human condition? Yeah, all roads lead to Rome. I'm sensing a pattern here; quasi-postmodernism or postmodernism proper or a variation of it.

I see population control as just a happy outcome from antinatalism, not as the reason. But I see it was a good segue to show that video — schopenhauer1

All that I can say at the moment is that there's going to a dramatic fall in the global population in (say) another 50 years. Whether this is done the easy way or the hard way is anyone's guess!

No, unfortunately or fortunately, no!

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him" — SpaceDweller

Let's see what Gnomon has to say.

His G*D is some kinda information-based entity. He makes it a point to state, in very clear propositions, the word "god" is what in math is a variable (x, unknown, re god of the gaps).

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

You know, I've been thinking (like never before in my life)...the gap between us and God could be as big or even bigger than the gap between us and animals stones! That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him).

Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things. — Terry Pratchett

A good repartee to the so-called problem of evil!

As far as God's concerned, the universe is lifeless, biologically barren!

So we're just sacks of chemistry! — Neil deGrasse Tyson

To the guy upstairs, we're nothing more than a chemical reaction! Could you feel anything for one? :chin:

Smith is quite the optimist. I wonder if he's anticipating warp drive, suspended animation, teleportation - or something else. — Relativist

I'm not an optimist. I'm just tired of being a Gloomy Gus! I thought I might try on some optimism; you know, a test-drive of sorts! No untoward events to report till date. :grin:

Muchas gracias señor/señorita!

1. What is it? (Ontology)
2. What happens to it? (Causality)
3. Does it stay the same or does it become something else? (Change & Identity)
3. Does it have to be this/that way? Could it have been different? (Necessity & Possibility)
4. Where is it? When is it? (Space & Time)

An uncanny resemblance to the questions one would ask in threat assessment! :chin:

The rate of expansion is not a speed. It has different units (m/sec/mpc) than speed (m/sec) — noAxioms

:fire:

Another illustration: Put up a circular wall of radius 1 million km with you at the center. Use a laser pointer to shine a red dot at it, to the excitement of your relativistic cat. You can flick your wrist and send the dot moving at arbitrarily high speeds around the screen. The dot moves at far faster than c in any direction at your choosing. — noAxioms

So the red dot "moving at (an) arbitrarily high speed(s)" (faster-than-light) is nonphysical! Hasta be, oui?

@Wayfarer $\uparrow$

It emerges in the mind and then pulls itself higher. The first pull? Where it comes from? — Hillary

Good question!

Frankly, I dunno!

That said, in a universe that seems to hold tons of non-linear phenomena, I wonder why our minds are so into thinking in straight lines.

17 people + 1 guitar (in one piece) in a saloon car meant for 5 max!

I suppose we'll all fit on this planet! All this hullabaloo about overpopulation is just hype!

I like the music!

Math creating itself in the mind! — Hillary

Bootstrapping?

So metaphysics is basically the follow up question to "what is it?" viz. "what is it really?" This particular, seemingly-improved-upon query being asked of everything under the sun, but specifically of certain universal paradigms/notions critical to the understanding of our world such as

1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time

From what I can tell, metaphysics is an attempt to get a handle on the conceptual schema that we utilize to comprehend reality.

Can you help me, preferrably with an example or two, how the aforementioned 5 topics in metaphysics constitute a framework for making sense of whatever all this is?

If, as some believe, math is an invention then...

Math $\to$ Physics $\to$ Chemistry $\to$ Biology $\to$ Mind $\to$ Math!

That's self-creation, oui?

what comes after physics — Hillary

Physics $\to$ Chemistry $\to$ Biology $\to$...

What explains the persistence of this, what in your universe is a, delusion?

One fool can ask more questions in a minute than 12 wise men can answer in an hour. — Vladimir Lenin

the ultimate goal of any being should be to ‘do things to perfection’. — Possibility

Why? The world's a messy place, because? It's all your fault Fortuna, damn you! Damn you and your dice and your coins and your cards and your quantum mechanics! :grin:

I can sniff so-called experts and authority from a mile! They have a distinct smell. Instinct distinct. — Hillary

Ok, you have some skill!

Believe you me, we'll never make any progress just bandying words about as long as we have no means of getting childrens' consent with regard to being born in this world, in these times.

It's clear as crystal that the best-case scenario is to be able to get a child's prenatal permission. Hold on! Last I checked, children don't get to make decisions until they're 18+, legal guardians (parents, elder siblings, etc.) speak for them until autonomy at 18 is attained, oui? If so, isn't it odd that antinatalists demand that consent is a sine qua non for bringing children into this world? A fortiori, pre-birth, children are less able to make decisions.

However, the problem doesn't go away, does it? Even if we're supposed to think for unborn children, we can't ignore the suffering that stares us in the face every single day of our lives, ja?

It's easy: they seem to know what they talk about. They role play. That's why you are fooled by them... :grin: — Hillary

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility; in fact it's likelihood is > 50% and that's a conservative estimate vis-à-vis my abilities to recognize experts/authorities.

You have a point!

That's what @Possibility was driving at. Nirvana fallacy it's called if memory serves. Quite an apt name taking into account how Gautama was like life is suffering - he was aiming for perfection and it didn't take him long to find out that that was impossible in the world as we know it. Hence, the fact that no one knows where exactly a buddha goes to (neti neti).


Too "Speak for yourself" is an expresssion that's alive and well you know.

: :groan: :grin: :cry: :rofl: — Hillary

:smile:

Most laymen, like you or universeness, take what is told by "the expert" or the "the pro", for fact. "They know, they know, they studied it". Not realizing the so-called experts are inly human after all. And their scholarly and objective knowledge turns out to be no more than an opinion. — Hillary

In my experience, an expert is (usually) immediately recognizable. Don't ask me how!

Don't believe anything they tell you. — Hillary

:snicker:

everything is a service — Streetlight

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. — Eskander

What a powerful idea, mon ami! What a powerful idea! I could employ a spouse, a sibling, parents, children for as long as they cook my goose so to speak. When things go sideways, I can fire 'em at my discretion!

Magnifique, I tell you!

Don't worry, I'll pay 'em well! Everyone will be happy, that's what matters in the end, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

Professional Mourning :rofl: Why would you want anyone to burst into tears upon your demise? I'd prefer people to dance on my grave! :rofl:



https://youtu.be/JTKopeQhiDo

:chin:

Exactly, it looks like we do not know how to learn of bad experiences. — javi2541997

Hope?

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! — George W. Bush

We can't afford to make the same mistake again and again, but it looks like that's exactly what we're really good at. It doesn't look deliberate, so we should pat ourselves on the back for that. We're not that stupid! :grin: That's not gonna be of much help though for we seem idiotic enough to just cause our own extinction in spectacular fashion.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

True we've manged to record what we've learned with the aid of language; also true that our intention is to pass down our knowledge to the next generation so that they can learn from our mistakes. However, it turns out this is an illusion - our children goof up in the same ways as we did before them and as our forebears did before us. Progress is an illusion - we're still hurting/killing each other, only the way we do it has changed (swords/bows/spears/catapults/strychnine$\to$ guns/missiles/bombs/novichok). We've not made an inch of progress as regards human nature!

My guess is they’ll destroy everything in an effort to save everything. — NOS4A2

:fire:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Methinks it can be done! Should it be done? I'm not quite sure.

In a country which I will not name here, I saw a mother spank her toddler son to keep him from falling into a ditch! I wondered back then as I still do now, wouldn't the beating have been as equally painful as the fall? :chin:

Some say life's simple. I think not!

Since we are unable to have answer about first principles or the ultimate foundations of reality, I always avoid to use Metaphysical assumptions in my philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Wow! I didn't know we could do that, sir/ma'am! You're the very soul of clarity as far as I'm concerned.

The rest of your post, superb! Isn't it better to stop arguing about, sensu lato, noumena and just focus our scarce supply of energy on the phenomena.

The sleep of reason begets monsters. — Francisco Goya

.