Lehet. Lehetseges. Elkepzelheto.

Pontosabban, milyen pontokat lat? Pontosan latja a pontokat, vagy esetleg pontatlanul? Szemuveggel jobban? A pontok mind egyszinuek, es a kozbulso ter szinezett, vagy maguknak a pontoknak van szine?

Hi! Interesting concept. I would like to challenge two of your assumptions.

1. Thought machines reading the state of the relevant physical world. Here, the assumption that a physical world exists is not unassailable.
2. Thought machines would need an infinite number of points to connect to the physical world. Receptors, sensing points.This I challenge as well. There need not to be so many points. A few indicative and strategically connected points are enough, and the thought machines could interpolate for needed reality the "empty space" between the points, if needed. By "empty space" I meant space not sensed, space void of receptor or sensing points. And in fact that is what I think is happening in reality.

I would like to challenge your conclusion as well.

You say that the infinite-point sensing apparatus of thought machines are only possible by the help of supernatural forces. This is not a valid conclusion, as the infinite-number of sensing points between the conscious of the thought-machine and reality is perfectly possible without an intervening supernatural element.

We move in a perceived world of finites, but in fact our world comprises many infinites; and each infinite is capable of sustaining itself without any supernatural element's aid. Therefore I reject your conclusion that a supernatural force must necessarily exist because and only because there is an infinite number of access points between the thought machine and reality.

Not pretending to throw light on the truth, but just merely adding another trivia, another factual observation that might be of interest for this topic: teasing. A group effort, in which an individual is made fun of, and commensurate with the intensity of the teased individual's anger, the group's delight felt by its individual members is increasing, too. A bit similar to tearing out legs of buts and making it move nevertheless, or keeping a frog to jump beyond its wishful ability and normal motivational pattern to keep on jumping.

After 6 hours she stopped her performance and walked towards the audience who fled from her. — Cavacava

Still a lot of thinking needs to be done, and the phenomena are complex, psychologically.

But the fact that the audience fled means that the audience was AWARE of doing wrong, and they still did it, despite the wrongness of it, and despite the recognition of wrongness.

There is a perpetration, a force which is not "evil" per se, but can be indistinguishable from evil if viewed as a black box effect, but which non-evil is a complex resultant vector of many causational factors, most of which we must first discover and then examine.

I strongly believe that 1. These experiments have a very rational explanation, and 2. we have not formulated those explanations, because 3. our knowledge of human nature is incomplete.

There may be, equally probably, an explanation which is a root explanation of man's cruel nature. By root explanation I mean it is not a complex behaviour, but an "atomic" behaviour pattern, which is not explained by other behaviour motivational patterns, but is by itself a very basic human response.

The restrictions are not too strict. But the level of consciousness is way down. Participation is up, though. Which means fewer and fewer smart people join. But perhaps critical mass is still to be reached. My personal interest was never tickled by this site. But I keep posting anyway... there is no harm in trying... but there is harm in trolling: controlling, patrolling and get rolling.

This is only a suggestion - but you guys could try telling actual jokes. That's kind of the idea behind this discussion. — T Clark

Sir, you are being too Rich.

I accused Nils Loc of being a computer. I think I'll accuse you of being monkey's with typewriters. — T Clark

I am actually several typewriters, who hit the fingers of so many monkeys. The monkeys say these "jokes" involuntarily, therefore, with a lot of hissing and quite cursing sounds in pain. Their verbal cries the same microphone records, that has been used to settle the argument, "if a tree falls in a forest" etc.

WYSIWYG.

This witz has no schlitz... it has a switch instead.

A mathematician and a priest are having lunch. The mathematician asks — T Clark

, "what was the year before creation? "Year -1. Or 1 BC," Says the priest. "And the year before that?" asks the math guy. "2 BC," says the priest. "What was the very first year before creation?" "Year Infinity BC, I suppose," says the priest. "So what number was the next year?" "Erm... infinity minus one BC, I surmise." "Okay... so what year did the switch happen, the switch from the year Infinity - N (here N is a positive integer) to a nominative integer, say, 2432 BC?" The priest thinks for a while and says, "Now I'm going to slug you. Very hard."

To think this joke has never happened has been a Swiss Wish. Next I'll tell you a Sask. watch.

The Demonic Cantor and Kant or Socrates are counting towards infinity. Cantor takes the odd numbers, Kant or Socrates, the even numbers. In walks Schopenhauer. He is the illegitimate son of Mrs. Chopin and Adenauer, West German Archchancellor. That's how he wound up with this f up name. "What are you guys doing?" "We are counting toward infinity, to see who gets there first." "Do you count fractions, as well?" The demonic Cantor and Kant or Socrates look at each other, and say in unison, "we ought to slug you now very hard."

There were three numbers in a row. One of them's kidding. He is now on skid row.

(Traditional:) Why did six cry? Seven, eight, nine.

How many numbers in a row does it take to screw in a light bulb? I dunno, but they had better start turning it clockwise, otherwise the entire exercise is doomed to failure.

Two blonde threes walk into a foursome. "Hey, handsome," said one of the lissome threesome, "hand me some?" "Ah!" replied the rowsome bluesome. "I am a beausome lumberjack, I like some bosome... erm, miss some. Some misses I get though. I like a direct miss, who don't mess much or muss my hair." "Don't get your panties in a bunch," replied the moosome kisssome. "Some like it hot."

I don't give a damn, I am going to use a four-letter word. This ^ is fucking pathetic.

They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. — Rich

Thanks for displaying a low IQ level. Now I know how you are able to cling to your false belief. I told you that laws know nothing, and yet you insist they do.

The cat eventually always comes out of the bag. Your incredible inability to grasp concepts and distinguish between two extant ones shines through. I don't think I need to keep on fighting this Quixotic battle against a Windmill, that you are, Rich; an entity that has no reasonable thought as you have so eloquently and multiply disclosed about yourself.

I am not mocking you or trying to insult you. I just simply observed that you are incapable of realizing that natural laws are not human beings, equipped with the faculty of knowledge. You stated that falsehood now twice; I am convinced you can't be convinced otherwise. Therefore I made the judgment call that you are incapable of real, proper intellectual discourse, as you lack basic elements of reasoning and comprehension, and also lack a sufficient amount of ability for complex thought and complex ideas.

Of course, I expect you now to come back and say that I am the one who lacks reason. That will not daunt me, as it will be a simple knee-jerk reaction by you. I won't even consider it seriously, as it will come from someone, you in particular, who has demonstrated that he or she is not worthy of participating on a philosophy website, by reason of intellectual deficiency.

Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing".

Rich, you are locked in a mindset where you can't imagine a godless universe. Whereas the one we live in can exist very easily without god. Any god.

This is not my shortcoming that you are so closed-minded. If you can't get out of your prison, a prison of needing a god so badly that you believe everyone else needs one, too, then you are really a devout believer. A philosopher, however, in my opinion, you are not.

I was going to use that, but I'm guessing that Socrates and Sartre are being misquoted. — T Clark

Ah, perish the thought!!

Anything goes in love, war, philosophy and humour.

Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK. — Rich

Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith?

I get insulted just by the insinuation that all and every human being can't but must worship some god or other. That's nice if you do, and good for you, but leave me out of this cheap thrill.

Natural laws are not omnipotent, and certainly not omniscient. They may be omnipresent, but that is currently up for debate among cosmologists.

You have been imbibing religion, and you can't get your head above the water of seeing the world only as a relationship of sort to a god or gods.

"Beam me up, Scottie, there is life out there more than just religion."

Does that help at all? — MysticMonist

A little. I basically can't be too concerned about all this, since I'm an atheist. I can't even remember now how I was pulled into this thread.

But YOU seem to be having a ball, which is important. I wish you continued success with researching Judaism and its ancient roots.

If science really is the asymptote of truth—an asymptote being a curve that gets infinitly closer to a line but never ever touches it ; the idea is often atributed to Victor Hugo—what would the equivalent analogy be for philosophy related to truth ? — Nuncaltussum

The passionfruit of truth.

"Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect."

Two young Briton nobles are sitting in an outdoor cafe, in Firenze somewhere. One of them says, "You see those two bombas?" "Yes," says the other one. "Well," says the first one, "one of them is my wife, and the other, is my lover." The other one puts on a surprised face: "Eyh... for me, too."

Oh, here's one, I am surprised nobody has said it yet.

"To do is to be." Socrates.

"To be is to do." Jean-Paul Sartre.

"Dobedobedo." Frank Sinatra.

Two guys are lost on a hunting trip... they had been separated from their group. They wonder aimlessly, night is falling, they come upon a hut in the woods. They go in, lock the door, and eat something that's in the cupboards. "You know, Sam," says one, "I'm a masochist." "Intersting," replies Sam, "I'm a sadist." The first guy falls on his knees, and begs Sam: "Please! Hit me! Claw me! Kick me! Spit on me." Sam puts his arms across, raises his nose and simply says: "No."

The CI basically states that only those actions are morally good that can be universal law. — TheMadFool

Your ensuing reasoning is solid, and acceptable. It reminds one of the prisoners' dilemma, but is more general, and with a more wide-spread applicability.

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

Any number. They just have to argue about it until finally the light goes up.

What's the difference between a sparrow?

Both of his wings resemble each other, esp. the left one.

The Fellow Fellatio fallacy -- phallusy for fallacy
The philatelist phallacy -- buying arguments with food stamps
The Phalling of walls phallacy -- Jericho, here I come!
The philandering philosopher's fallacy -- in vino, veritas; in, Vito, very fast!
The fallible fallacy -- I fell down and I can't get up.
The Papal infallibility principle fallacy -- I got up and I can't fall down!
The fall fallacy -- no rain fall fell, yet filled cups full.

I think you are thinking of ancient Judaism or of the Sadducees who didn't believe in an afterlife. — MysticMonist

I am sorry, but I'm actually thinking of a Woody Allen movie, in which he talks to his dead father in the netherworld, who says to Woody, "son, get me out of here." "Where do you want to go, dad?" "Well, we have no such thing as heaven... so take me to a Chinese restaurant, will you please."

Now that you mention it, however, the Sadducees sound to have a highly sadductive ideology...

Well anyone can call supernatural natural. — Rich

I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".

It is unnatural to call natural supernatural.

it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Law — Rich

According to you, Rich, the natural is supernatural.

For the record, I disagree.

But do carry on. Your pseudo-intellectual antics are now starting to become amusing, and to lose their vexing effect.

A merciful and nice god of the Jewish faith is completely mute. There is no afterlife in the Jewish faith tradition, no hell, no heaven, so the only thing that keeps the followers of the Jewish religions from sinning (not crime... big difference), is their love of god, and not their fear of god.

This is unimaginable by the Christian sin-standards, where you earn your just reward or proper punishment on either end of the behavioural scale of how you succeeded in your endeavours to appease your God in this life.

Rich, you do not understand logic. Causality and determinism go hand-in-hand. If you can't accept that, I can accept your inability to do so. That's the best I can offer to you.

What the heck? There is nothing in QM that is causal. Bohm's interpretation is causal but non-deterministic. — Rich

That may be your own personal interpretation, but your opinion is false.

Wrong. There are causes but constraints, choices and novelty make the world probabilistic. — Rich

Human knowledge of the future states of the world is probabilistic. But the world itself, its future states, is determined by its past, via a chain of causality.

Determinism is simply the religion of atheists and I firmly believe everyone needs some faith in their lives. — Rich

Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authority.

You are mixing up faith with religion. Big mistake.

The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a string belief in that don't they? — Jake Tarragon

No,even in principle that is not possible. ESPECIALLY not in principle.

Evidence?? How about Quantum Mechanics to begin with? Unfortunately, for determinists, it all ended about 100 years ago. — Rich

If determininsm was false, then the world would be non-causal. If the world were non-causal, then the rules and laws of QM could not be drawn up.

The rules and laws of QM have been drawn up. You accept they have been.

Therefore the world is causal.

Therefore the world is deterministic.

Your argument I proved wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------

I challenge you to name one, just one rule of QM which is well-known in the public's awareness, and shows that its process is not causal. Thanks.

The universe is either causal, or not. This is something you have to accept by, for instance, faith.

Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic.

Once you decide the universe is not causal, then you have no right to pretend that you recognize patterns or you can establish rules according to which the world operates.

Bit of a self-contradictory wish. If the universe is indeterministic, then the cause-effect chain is ineffective. Control does need cause-effect chain to be working. But it's not. So control is impossible, in a non-deterministic universe.
— szardosszemagad

Choices are constrained and affected by the past memories but are non-deterministic in nature. — Rich

Your answer "Choices are constrained... etc." is not a direct response to my observation, furthermore, your answer is full of wishful claims, without any validity to them.

Your analysis,

Because of habits, the universe is probabilistic. — Rich

is not at all logical. It is a claim, but it has no merit, due to lack of evidencing or other support. You just make up things as you go, is my opinion.

Hachem, how can you not recognize criticism enveloped in a sardonic comparison of your opinion with established truths?

Of course I did not agree with you. Your proposition is false. My examples and your painstaking examination of them makes it clear that your proposition can't hold.

If God does not exist, then you CAN'T imagine a thing greater than god.
— szardosszemagad

If existence is ''better'' than nonexistence, then I can imagine a God that exists which would be greater than one that doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

taken out of context, any proposition can be falsified.

My point is meaningless without the context I put it in. You don't have the right to take it out of context and manipulate it to your whimsy. You are committing a Strawman fallacy.

You can't argue like that in a proper philosophy forum.

I therefore reject your argument, Mad Fool.

That's A.

B. is that you made a new proposal, in the new context which you placed the question in. That proposal is pending on a condition, which is

If existence is ''better'' than nonexistence, — TheMadFool

This is a condition which is not proven or supported by argument pro or con. So your argument is meaningless at best.

1. Morality exists
2. It is not man-made, but innate to man and other animals
3. You can't break the moral code you have
— szardosszemagad

1 is true, but 2 and 3 aren't. We aren't just born moral, and don't have to learn it, and strive for it. This is clearly not the case. What do you figure when you see someone that is immoral? Mutant? Every time? — Wosret

You believe that? Everyone has the right to his or her own false beliefs. You have yours.

If you did some research, what I presented has much support in psych experiments. You believe a different truth, which I find to be false, a complete disaster of a weltanschauung. Fine, that's your privilege. But you have to show SOME evidence that my proposition is false.

If you insist that I show that my proposition has support, fine, but you'll have to wait a while while I gather up evidence.

All I say is that interferometers are not objective scientific instruments but are devices whose results can only be interpreted within the framework of the dual theory of light. It is something like mutual recognition: the theory gives justification to the device, which in turn gives legitimacy to the theory. — Hachem

Measuring sticks are not objective scientific instruments, but are devices whose results can only be interpreted within the framework of distances. Measuring sticks do not measure time, temperature, or electric current. It is something like mutual recognition: the theory gives justification to the device, which in turn gives legitimacy to the theory.

Weight scales are not objective scientific instruments, but are devices whose results can only be interpreted within the framework of force. Weight scales do not measure time, temperature, or electric current. It is something like mutual recognition: the theory gives justification to the device, which in turn gives legitimacy to the theory.

Seismographs are not objective scientific instruments, but are devices whose results can only be interpreted within the framework of shakes. Seismographs do not measure time, temperature, or electric current. It is something like mutual recognition: the theory gives justification to the device, which in turn gives legitimacy to the theory.

Do you see what I am trying to illustrate?

4. If God doesn't exist then I can imagine a being greater than God (a greatest being who exists) [premise] — TheMadFool

If God does not exist, then you CAN'T imagine a thing greater than god. For a comparison in real terms, both comparands must exist. So you can't imagine a thing greater than god, or lesser than god, or in any way related to god. Because it is a given (as per the condition) that god does not exist.