I cannot see any reason to create a new child and I have not had any children myself. — Andrew4Handel

I fully endorse everyone who has commented so far not having children. The thought of any of you having children makes me shiver. Please make sure that all of you with any chance of being involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex use effective birth control. Please.

Deciding to have children is not usually a rational decision while deciding not to often is. My brother and his wife decided not to have children. My daughter did too. Most people want to have children. Why? I'm sure it includes a combination of biological urges and social conditioning. It also includes a sense of wanting to contribute to our communities and families. I see my children as a gift to my extended family and I think they agree. I feel that way about my nieces. Having children is seen as a good thing and many of us, probably most of us, agree. When we get down to it, it doesn't matter why we want children, we do.

Why not? — Possibility

Well -

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

and all that. I'm with Ralph and all, but right now, my "own thought" tells me that the translations provided by others taken together provide the best basis for me to proceed. I'll add your voice as one among the others.

You seem convinced that your own experience and understanding of the world has nothing to offer these so-called experts. — Possibility

I come to the translations, and so, to the translators, for guidance experiencing the Tao. For me, what they are doing is saying over and over again "Hey! look over here. No! here! See this?"

But surely you would agree that the most accurate platform to work from is still the original text, and that essay highlights just some of the errors and assumptions surrounding any interpretation Chinese to English - especially by experts. — Possibility

I haven't read more than the first couple of paragraphs of Fenollosa's essay. It's on my list.

Each translation brings with it the translator’s historical, cultural and ideological position in relation to the text, to ancient Chinese culture, to Daoism and to the Dao. — Possibility

Sure. And that's why the final test - how well does the translation help me attain the experience - is the only important test.

If you choose to dismiss this based on my apparent lack of expertise, then that’s your methodology. I’m just sharing my journey. — Possibility

As I said, I don't dismiss what you have to say, I include it as one of the voices I listen to.

In American law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal trials - innocent until proven guilty. That isn't always the case in other jurisdictions. Who is responsible for proving a claim depends on where you are. It's a matter of convention. A procedural rule.

Our attention and effort is naturally drawn to sensory details that differ from our predictions. So long as we find it useful to allocate attention to new information, then we generate an immediate overall impression or prediction of this something new, and then with repeated allocations of attention and effort, we acquire further sensory details that distinguish qualitative structure, and the brain employs sampling strategies to maximise detailed information with minimal effort - we categorise and group repeating qualitative patterns as concepts. — Possibility

You are explaining the mechanisms by which experience leads to awareness, a la Barrett. I was describing my personal experience, a la, well, me. I'm not questioning the value of what you are doing, but it was not the point of my previous discussion.

for me, the initial step in awareness is the unfathomable whole, or what I refer to as ‘this’, the possibility of which must exist prior to il y a or ‘there is’. It’s the reference point necessary for any awareness to occur, even in a potential sense. Yet there is no awareness of it. This points to the contradiction at the heart of all existence. — Possibility

Is this Kantian? Definitely has a touch of "Je pense donc je suis" in it too. Since we're speaking French. I don't see any particular contradiction. Also, that's not really relevant to what I am talking about, which is the experience of awareness. What it feels like to me.

I find it curious that so many of these translations read in a subject, such as the Tao, the government or leaders, that doesn’t exist in the original text. One of the basic rules of Chinese grammar is that it is topic-prominent, whereas English tends to be subject-prominent. Many sentences in Chinese don’t have a subject at all, which can be confusing. — Possibility

The trick, I think, is to be wary of making the same mistake as described in this verse, and forcing an interpretation to fit the conceptual structure of our own experience and knowledge, but rather to be open to restructuring our experience and knowledge, our conceptual structures, to fit the original Way. — Possibility

This is a major procedural disagreement between you and me. You question the basics of all the translations of the TTC and I accept them, at least as a platform to work from. The TTC has been studied for thousands of years and translated hundreds of times. As I've said before, you've convinced me that, if I want to understand the TTC, I have to pay attention to language, but, when trip comes to fall, I will never be able to second-guess the opinions of a whole lot of people who know a whole lot more than I do.

...whatever attributes we possess have been defined by the requirements of adaptation to the environment. And the only criteria for success that such a theory recognises is successful procreation. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Well, not exactly exactly. It is my understanding that evolutionary biologists now believe that there are mechanisms other than natural selection that also contribute to our genetic makeup. But still, mostly exactly.

You may note that 'abstract reflection on the nature of reality' can't really be accomodated under any of these headings. And I'm afraid philosophy per se doesn't fit into this framework, either. — Wayfarer

Although not everyone agrees with this, I don't think evolution directly influences complex human behavior. Our equipment and capacities evolve, but how we use the equipment can be influenced by lots of things - experience, social interaction, teaching, language acquisition, cultural influences, and thinking. It is also my understanding that the way we use our minds and brains can change brain structure. There is an important principle in evolutionary theory - a capacity or feature evolved for one purpose can be shanghaied for another. Our big brains, which might have evolved for social interaction and language, can be used for less immediately useful behavior. We learn to speak, then we learn to speak to ourselves. Keeping in mind that my understanding of all this is not extensive.

My claim is that when intelligence evolves to the point of being able to seek reason and meaning and to question the nature of reality - as it did, for example, with the Greek philosophers - then we've escaped the tyranny of the Four F's, so to speak. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that human intelligence has been pretty much the same since we evolved about 200,000 years ago. I think what has changed since then is technology and culture. I'm not sure about that.

It's not so much a matter of 'bootstrapping', but that at this point, human intelligence can see beyond it's genetic and biological origins. Which is why, for example, this particular species of hominid has been able to weigh and measure the entire scope of the Cosmos; not an ability you would expect to acquire chasing wildebeest around the savannah, I would have thought ;-) — Wayfarer

Humanity has been able to "see beyond it's genetic and biological origins" and "measure the entire scope of the Cosmos" throughout history and, I assume, before. That's what religion and all those stone circles in the UK are for. Maybe they didn't see as clearly as we do, but again, I think that's culture, history, and technology. Did I mention that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Sounds more like the momentary dhammas of some Buddhist schools - each moment of experience arises and passes away in an instant, although the Buddha is said to be able to perceive their exact duration. Very different to Aristotelian philosophy with its essences and substances. — Wayfarer

You know I've got the Tao Te Ching on my mind.

Lao Tzu writes about the eternal return of the elements of our reality, what is sometimes called the 10,000 things, to the Tao, the unspeakable unity of existence. To me, that means that the world is recreated each moment. Keeping in mind, of course, that this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It just summarizes the assumptions underlying our understanding. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is a part of our world. One of the 10,000 things. Statements I make about QM and related phenomena are true or false. The similarity between the two ways of seeing is metaphorical.

I have thought for a long time that what humans call reality is an expression of the specific conditions we find ourselves under - our size, our location, our biological nature, the structure of our brains, the nature of our consciousness. I think we evolved a means of interacting with reality - our brains, nervous system, perceptual equipment, bodies - specifically to allow us to behave so that we will reproduce, as required by natural selection. The system had to be as simple as possible so it would fit in our heads, wouldn't require too much energy, and was stable. That limitation directly affects what and how we can perceive and know. Those limitations have been loosened somewhat using technology, but I think we still follow the mental and behavioral habits of our human ancestors. I wonder if that's the kind of thing the author of the paper you linked is talking about - how do we get beyond those limits. Sounds like pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps to me.

Anyway - I would definitely be interested in seeing what you write.

This beautiful poem comes from Tao Te King. — javi2541997

I might include the Tao Te Ching on my list too.

My question wasn’t to challenge this separation, but to understand the process of switching from fingers and toes to body, and to emotions and thoughts - particularly the qualitative structural differences between what we refer to as fingers, bodies, organisms, emotions and selves. — Possibility

I'll take a shot based on my personal experience. It's all about awareness. When I come to something new, I have a general sort of awareness based on my immediate impression. If I expose myself repeatedly and pay attention, my awareness grows and I start noticing the parts of the phenomenon I am experiencing. They start to call my attention to themselves and I start focusing my attention on them. I actually started a discussion about what it feels like to become aware like this a few years ago. Here's a link if you're interested.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2412/page/p1

I hope this clarifies what I was saying. — Possibility

Thanks for the explanation.

Verse 17

Stephen Mitchell

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"

Ellen Marie Chen

The best government, the people know it is just there.
The next best, they love and praise it.
The next, they fear it.
The next, they revile against it.
When you don't trust (hsin) [the people] enough,
Then they are untrustworthy (pu hsin).
Quiet, why value words (yen)?
Work is accomplished, things are done.
People all say that I am natural (tzu-jan).

Here are my thoughts about the verse.

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.

For me, this verse is about wu wei, no action. The King doesn’t care about honors, status, power, or acclaim. He doesn’t act out of desire or fear. He governs without governing. This is from Mitchell’s Verse 15:

Do you have the patience to wait
till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
till the right action arises by itself?

For me, this is a perfect description of wu wei - both non-action and action without action.

Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

This is what I call a ladder and @Possibility calls a cascade. They are used a lot in the TTC, sometimes, like this, to describe what happens when a person loses contact with the Tao. This reminds me Stefan Stenudd’s translation of Verse 18:

When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.

This is from Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38:

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos

This describes a descent from spontaneity to rigid rules and bureaucracy then to forceful, repressive action and then to corruption and weakness. This highlights a theme that comes up a lot in the TTC – what we call virtuous rule, which would be our highest aspiration in a democracy, is not the highest way to govern. Kindness and open-heartedness, which would be our goal in our personal lives, is not the highest step. To me, the step up to contact with the Tao isn’t really a step up, it’s a step out.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

I’ve always thought that trust is not an actuarial judgement. You’re not betting that the person or thing won’t betray you. You understand that what you lose by not trusting is more important than what you lose if you are betrayed. I think these lines have something to do with that.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"

Other writers translate the last line differently:

• People say, "We did it!"
  
• Everyone says We just acted naturally.
• People all say that I am natural (I think this is referring to the King.)
• The people all say, "We did it naturally"
• Ordinary people say, Oh, we did it.
• The people all say, 'It happened to us naturally.'

It happened spontaneously. It happened without happening.

space is added between them — James Riley

Space isn't added between galaxies. All of space is expanding so the fabric of space between galaxies is stretching. The analogy generally used is to an inflating balloon. Two marks put on the balloon with a marker will move apart just because of the expansion of the balloon. Of course, space is a three dimensional compared to the two dimensional surface of the balloon. Or is it four dimensional?

I think that's fair and far better expressed than my version. — Tom Storm

So, can you flip and egg without breaking the yolk - I'd say about 53% percent of the time for me.
Can you drive stick? I used to own stick cars. The last time I tried, I kept grinding the gears, so my brother wouldn't let me drive anymore.

If it was space before the big bang, and space after the big bang - then what changed? Plus, light still only travels at a defined velocity in space. Then did light travel faster before the big bang? — Don Wade

There was no space before the big bang. As for the speed of light, I already explained as much as I know. And there was no light before the big bang.

Shock waves require a medium - pretty much any and every wave requires a medium. — tim wood

Not electromagnetic radiation.

If you're inclined to accord any, what might your ultimatums entail — Aryamoy Mitra

Find a technology that will counteract the effects of the mechanism.

Not skills so much as the body doing its thing. I see a skill as something a human being can acquire or not. Being able to see in a particular way may be a skill. Being able to see in itself, not so much. — Tom Storm

I think a lot of the "skills" discussed here are not really skills. Perseverance, ability to adapt, open-mindedness, discipline, thinking well, resilience ... These are more character traits than skills. Now, skills:

• Flipping eggs without breaking the yolks
• Driving stick
• Sexual.... well
• Public speaking
• Finding food, water, shelter
• Sliding into second
• Meditation
• Swimming

Not necessarily in that order.

If we first assume the universe started with a Big Bang, then there should have been a shock-wave extending out from the center. Science tells us that the shock-wave could not move faster than the speed of light. Did it? — Don Wade

I think the shock wave you are talking about is space. As for travelling faster than the speed of light - the universe is about 14 billion years old while the diameter of the universe is about 90 billion light years. It is generally explained that movement associated with expansion of space doesn't count in the light speed calculation. I've never gotten that, but who am I to argue with Einstein?

I mainly wanted to bring up the practice to emphasize how the arguments regarding scholarship complicate the direct reading of the text. — Valentinus

Use your judgement about when you think it is useful. One thing it does for me is to make me think more about how I should be thinking about Tai Chi.

I will try to give an answer that connects with our discussion after some time. It a practice of meditation where the homework is difficult. I can't see very far ahead. It is like learning the form in Tai Chi. I understand more of the language framing it after doing it for a while but I am not able to explain much. — Valentinus

Sure. I know that my experience of my practice is connected very little with my understanding and experience of the Tao. Although I understand they are connected both historically, conceptually, and in practice, I don't feel that. They are two things that I enjoy and they both use funny words.

As I said, I hope you will continue bringing your experience into our discussion when it seems useful.

I like this description. We like to think of ourselves as complete, whole, known (or at least knowable) in some substantial sense; that there exists some predetermined ‘essence’ of who we are, waiting to be discovered by ourselves and others. We continually lose and try to ‘find ourselves’, not realising that we are newly made by the variability of our ongoing relation to the world. The old masters didn’t assume or try to form an identity for themselves. By holding fast to the way, instead of holding fast to an identity or ‘known quantity’, they come across as unidentifiable, murky, passive and lacking in any apparent personality. It’s like trying to describe an electron. I especially like the phrase “formal, like a guest”. — Possibility

As I said in an earlier post, I shouldn't have skipped this verse. I've never liked it, but your way of seeing it makes a lot of sense.

Your quote from the text you included in your post:

Inward Training understands Daoist practice as
ultimately connected to consciousness and spirit ( shen 神 ), with particular
emphasis placed on the ability of the heart-mind ( xin 心 ) either to attain
numinous pervasion ( lingtong 靈通 ) or to separate the adept from the Dao
as Source. — Valentinus

Do you have a feel for what this means? Does "numinous pervasion" mean experience of the Tao? What does "separate the adept from the Dao as Source" mean?

While it is true that this map has continuity with Dao De Jing, it can never be a replacement for it. — Valentinus

You use the word "map" a lot. A map is a representation of one thing by another, e.g. the world by a piece of paper. I'm going to go back and see how you've been using it in other posts. What map are you talking about here? Taoist practice?

You have started bringing your meditative practice into our discussions more. I really like that.

Why do we talk about emotions, perceptions and thoughts separately depending on the situation, when we don’t experience them as separately as these terms make out? — Possibility

I talk about my emotions, perceptions, and thoughts; but I also talk about my fingers, toes, and stomach. That doesn't keep me from thinking of my body as all one thing. The self, the body, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the 10,000 things. It can be separated into parts.

I think this highlights the three levels of awareness that are often confused/blended into one (verse 13), and the cascade structure (verse 16) that presents each level as merely one facet of another level of awareness/relation. — Possibility

I went back and looked at several versions of Verse 13 and I'm not sure what you mean by three levels. Do you mean body, self, life?

I recognize the cascade structure you describe in Verse 16. It's like a Russian doll. Here are the chains, from Ivanhoe:

• root;
• stillness.
• density destiny
• constancy.
• enlightenment.

• know constancy
• accommodate
• work for the good of all.
• be a true king.
• be Heavenly.
• embody the Way.
• be long lived,

I'm not sure what to say about this. It feels important. You say "presents each level as merely one facet of another level of awareness/relation." Do you mean that each level is part of the one below it in the same way we have been talking about self and body as being different facets of ourselves? I'm not sure about that.

I agree. I’m not often convinced by the reasoning given for Taoist practices, but I definitely think they draw attention to an important aspect of ‘experiencing the Tao’ that can be easily ignored in an intellectual approach to the TTC. I think verses 13 to 16 at least point out the bodily aspect of relating to the Tao as inseparable from our experience. — Possibility

I agree.

From that point of convergence, the line between the practical and the intellectual is not only a type of self awareness but an understanding of what is around you and the capacity to act effectively as a result.

A lot of scholars resist reading this perspective as the intention of Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi but the many traditions that used those maps for their own purposes are important voices to be heard. — Valentinus

I don't see any way to avoid understanding that the intention of Lao Tzu is as you describe. Although, if I want to quibble, I don't really think he had any intention at all. In order to act without acting you have to intend without intending.

I'm not sure I understand this. — James Riley

Are you saying logic is not a representation of reality? If it is, isn't failure to recognize the difference between reality and logic a logical failure?

We're probably digging to deep into this particular hole. It doesn't seem very productive to me.

I like the way you've set the post up, I remember that at the beginning of this thread I did line by line discussions when I posted the verses. I've gotten away from that and I think it was a mistake. It's mostly because I got lazy. Also, you mention that I skipped Verse 15. I'm thinking that skipping verses is a mistake too. I did it because the TTC has 81 verses and it will take forever to finish. That is a very un-Taoist attitude.

I think the first two lines of this verse refer to meditative practices as a method of attaining the ‘emptiness’ observed in the old masters of the previous verse. Strict stillness is required to have any hope of getting to the root of existence. — Possibility

There was a Tai Chi teacher in the TTC reading group I was previously a member of. At first, he didn't bring his Tai Chi practice into the discussion. During one of our meetings, someone asked him how Tai Chi related to the verse we were discussing. His answer really opened up the discussion for me, as well as my understanding of what Lao Tzu is saying. That is one of the reasons I keep harping on the idea that we can't understand the Tao, we can only experience it.

I understand this verse as describing a process from attaining stillness in being, to then being able to observe the flow of everything, and notice the stillness to which everything returns again and again, revealing an underlying constancy to the world. When we’re aware of this, we have a clearer understanding of the world as a whole; but without this awareness, our actions lack flow and can be reckless and vicious. Without this awareness, we are apart from the world, and in conflict with it.

From an awareness of this underlying constancy, though, we are part of the flow, and act with fairness and justice for all. When we are fair and just, we have the capacity for great leadership, which then enables a spiritual awareness that brings us to the Tao. — Possibility

This is a very good summary of the verse and, I think, the path to the Tao.

Plus, from the beginning of this sentence structure (arguably even the beginning of the verse) Lao Tzu is referring to a quality with no reference to ‘self’/‘I’ (the person in question attaining ‘emptiness’), so it really doesn’t make sense to suddenly bring a ‘self’ back in at the end. — Possibility

Addiss and Lombardo translate the last line as "Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger." I think you make too big a thing out of the body/self distinction. I don't really experience my body as something separate from my self, identify, ego, spirit, consciousness, whatever you want to call it. I talk about it separately, just like I can talk about my emotions, perceptions, thoughts separately, depending on the situation. But I don't experience them as different. It is my understanding that many people do. I experience myself as all one thing.

English is insufficient in helping me articulate what I’m understanding here, so again bear with me. This last line refers to the eternal Tao as having no ‘main part’ to its structure, and no probability to its existence. This is contrast with verse 13, where the ‘I’ (the self as wú) is described as having a ‘main part’ to its structure (shen), through which one suffers greatly. — Possibility

I'm not sure I understand. The Tao has no parts, but my self can. It's one of the 10,000 things.

So, the attaining of ‘emptiness’ is not a state of having NO self, but of dissolving the ‘I’ into the Tao — Possibility

I think having no self and dissolving my self into the Tao are the same thing.

When the body is recognised as just one facet of our conduct in living (rather than as its main part), then what draws our attention but cannot be seen is recognised for more than its destructive quality.

When our conduct, morality or lifespan is recognised as just one facet of consciousness, then what attracts our desire to learn but offers no set of instructions is understood as more than merely hopefulness.

And when our knowledge or consciousness is recognised as just one facet of a broader experience, then what attracts our efforts to relate, but cannot be grasped is meaningful for more than this quality of being abstruse. — Possibility

Lao Tzu has a lot to say about this later in the TTC.

I get the sense that intellectual approaches to the TTC tend to put aside the genuine difficulty in attaining this ‘emptiness’ as a physical state. — Possibility

That's what I mean when I say we can't understand the Tao, we can only experience it.

There seems to be a kind of ‘could if I chose to’ approach to this practical aspect of the Tao, — Possibility

Do you think this is my attitude. It's definitely not.

The idea that we theoretically have intellectual control over our emotions, and thereby our thoughts, words and actions, is what Barrett challenges from a scientific standpoint. — Possibility

I think Freud said just this back in the early 1900s.

But I don’t want you to get a sense that I’m attacking your approach as such. — Possibility

I don't get that impression at all. I do appreciate that you're looking out for me. I'm pretty shy and timid.

This thread pops back up every so often. It's probably my favorite one on the forum. Thanks for contributing.

As I told you, my brother and I went to Europe in 2014. One of the things that struck me was the large numbers of castles and other fortresses. It seemed like there was one every couple of miles. They were the Starbucks of the 15th through mid 20th centuries. Just goes to show what a hard place to live Europe has been over the centuries.

Not random at all. If you've looked at the rest of this thread, you've seen lots of buildings, old and new.

I don't know if this has worked? — scientia de summis

To get a picture to show up, copy the URL into the post. Then highlight it and click on the icon of a picture at the top of the comment. That should work. If it is a picture of your own, there is a button for uploading files - a box with an up arrow. There is also one for videos at websites - a video camera.

The law of noncontradiction applies to logic, not to reality. There is no restrictions in reality, but restrictions in logic. Logic is all about restrictions. — Yohan

Yes. I think this is at the heart of this discussion.

@James Riley - is the failure to recognize the difference between reality and a representation of reality, i.e. logic, one of the logical errors you are talking about?

I always thought that (the war) was more fear based. I agree hatred and fear often show up together or lead to each other...maybe those are two ends of a spectrum. — DingoJones

Maybe better examples would have been Northern Ireland and Palestine/Israel.

How are the views up there on your high horse? — Bartricks

From up here I can see that insulting poor defenseless @180 Proof is not legitimate philosophy. I've had my say. Carry on.

It is the principles of logic that I question. If I am wrong on that, and physicists have found a sock, then yes, since it is a logic sock they would have found, I would recognize it. — James Riley

I don't see the fundamental issues in physics as logical errors. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

On the other hand, if physics or any other study for that matter, had disproved a fundamental principle of logic in pursuit of their own inquiries, I think it would have been Earth-shaking news that rocked the world. Again, I've not heard of it. I suspect I would not have to come here looking if it existed. — James Riley

Physics doesn't prove or disprove logical principles. I don't think it can, by definition. It uses them as tools.

I chose physics because their inability, but desire to marry two theories is, I think fundamentally important to philosophy. — James Riley

Inability so far. I don't think physics is ever important to philosophy. I do think that philosophy is important to physics, although you won't find many physicists who agree. From what I've read, I think many physicists believe that a solution to the QM/relativity problem will require a radical revision of physics comparable to the changes that happened when relativity and QM were developed in the early 1900s. I don't see that as a philosophical change.

Ha, it’s okay! I love to hear everyone views and to learn from them. — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

I hope I didn't seem condescending. 180 Proof and Bartricks are two of our more... pugnacious rambunctious members. I was embarrassed. I try to be kind to new members.

Welcome by the way.

Was that hate or fear? — DingoJones

Either. Or both. Or they're the same. I do think a lot of hatred has fear mixed in.

I often hear people say that "hate" is wrong or bad. But to what extent should we consider this with a concern or with significance, and should we give energy to this on the basis of degree — Cobra

Hatred leads to violence and discord, so, I guess it's reasonable to say it's not good. What I think is definitely true is that it is not useful. Hate leads to actions that are ineffective in addressing the underlying conflict. For example, the war in Iraq started because anger and outrage lead the US to take actions that have killed tens of thousands of people, cost trillions of dollars, and seriously undermined our national security. That's how hate works.

Well done for trying. But, you know, maybe stop. — Bartricks

Hows about you and @180 Proof act like adults in front of our new member. Give her a chance to get started before you start sniping at each other.

If there is a group of smart people going backwards, instead forwards, to the very beginning, with the goal of launching an all out assault on the fundamental principles they thought were in stone, re-testing to make sure they are indeed in stone, and infallible, and that their comrades at the front, pushing forward with physics, are still on the right track, then I would sleep better at night. — James Riley

Do you know enough about physics to know whether the evaluation you are discussing is already being done? Do you know what the fundamental principles underlying current physics are? I guess what it comes down to is, do you know enough about modern physics to be able to ask the question "What's the matter with modern physics?"

In conclusion, I just came here looking for a sock. — James Riley

Would you recognize a sock if they showed you one?

you might have made fun of me — James Riley

I absolutely wasn't trying to make fun of you. I did try to be funny. The list of definitions I included is from a thread of philosophy jokes I started a couple of years ago.

I assume that physicists abide the advice of tim wood, above, regarding tools and the proper use thereof. And I assume that abidance is the cause of their failure. — James Riley

I assume I'm no more sophisticated in advanced physics than you are. It is my understanding that the reason quantum mechanics and relativity don't fit together is that they describe two different worlds. Unfortunately, there is only one world. There is no doubt in my mind that they will be able to be reconciled eventually.

more than a simple "gentleman's agreement" — James Riley

Don't underestimate the power of those gentleman's agreements. I have made the argument many times that most of the questions addressed on the forum, and in philosophy in general, are metaphysical questions. By which I mean that they set the stage for our understanding of the world but they are neither true nor false. They are useful in a particular situation or not useful.

meet its burden of proof with more than a "because I said so." — James Riley

To me it is the essence of philosophy that everything eventually goes back to "because God said so," "because X said so," "because we agreed that it was so," "because I said so," or "just because." Ultimately, there is probably one additional step back - "because that's how our minds work. How they have evolved to interact with the world."

I see no harm in assigning a small cadre of physicists to look into it. After all, it seems to be their camp which is frustrated. While they are skipping along their investigative way forward, they might send a party back to make sure they didn’t get off the trail at the beginning. — James Riley

You've lost me a bit. Is this cadre going back to reevaluate the underlying assumptions in order to find why we can't reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics? That's being done. I think it's hard, because both theories work very, very well to describe the phenomena they cover. And now we've reached the point, likely gone beyond the point, when I don't know what I'm talking about.

All the foregoing, and my tossing out the rules, had me generating what I thought were interesting opinions on particle physics, singularities, matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy, and time. But I’d sure like to nail down why I’m wrong about my foundation before I continue building on it. — James Riley

Maybe I'm lost again. Those entities - matter, time, particles, etc. - are physical phenomena we have observed or at least are trying to observe. They are not logical entities. What rules are you throwing out again?

Some advice - If, when you want to respond to a particular post, you click on the "reply" arrow that shows up when you run your curser next to the time stamp at the bottom of that post, your reply will be tagged and the person you are replying to will be notified.

Even better, if you want to reply to some particular text, you can highlight that text. A black "quote" button will show up. If you click on that, the text you highlighted will be copied down to the reply you are writing with a tag which notifies the person you are replying to.

I have a feeling that taking any of the ideas I've discussed here any further will divert the discussion from what you are trying to achieve here. You and I have very different philosophies.

The function of repeatability in experiments is NOT to confirm a hypothesis.

The function of repeatability is to check the reliability of the experimental result. — bert1

What's the difference? At least under most circumstances.

A single unrepeated experiment, if reliable, is enough to refute a hypothesis. You don't have to do it again. — bert1

So, how do you demonstrate that an experiment is reliable. I can think of two ways.1) review the premises, procedures, data, calculations, and conclusions for errors and unsound interpretations and 2) rerun the experiment. How far you have to go to show an experiment is reliable depends on the consequences of being wrong. If people's lives or millions of dollars are on the line, maybe you do need to rerun the experiment after all.