A contradiction can't be true and the liar sentence leads to a contradiction meaning that the liar statement has to be false, but that means it is true which means it is false...ad infinitum or ad nauseum, depending on your constitution. The liar statement is a paradox.

I'd like to run the following argument by you and others about a possible "solution":

A = this statement is false
P = A is true
~P = A is false
R = A is a proposition
S = A has a truth value

1. If R then S
2. If S then (P or ~P)
3. If P then ~P...................................the liar paradox in action when A is taken as true
4. If ~P then P...................................the liar paradox in action when A is taken as false
5. R...............................assume for reductio
6. S...................1, 5 MP
7. P or ~P.......2, 6 MP
8.P.........................assume for CP
9. ~P.....................3, 8 MP
10. P & ~P............8, 9 Conj
11. If P then (P & ~P)..................8 to 10 CP
12. ~P.................................assume for CP
13. P....................................4, 12 MP
14. P & ~P...........................12, 13 conj
15. If ~P then (P & ~P)..........12 to 14 CP
16 (P & ~P) or (P & ~P)........7, 11, 15 CD
17. P & ~P..........................16 Taut ( a contradiction)
18. ~R.................................5 to 17 reductio ad absurdum
~R means A is NOT a proposition.
The logical conclusion it seems is that the Liar statement (A) is NOT a proposition.

See my last reply to Qmeri regarding beliefs in mainstream science.

Regarding scientific method, I’m not saying that mainstream scientists do not think, that they do not make observations and that they do not make experiments, but all people do that. We all think, we all make observations, we all make experiments. Practicing any activity is an experiment, through practice we see what works and what doesn’t work and that’s how we get better at whatever we focus on. Thinking, observation, experiment is carried out by all people, not just by mainstream scientists. If you say that this is the scientific method then we are all scientists. If you try to formulate a scientific method more precisely, you will realize that plenty of mainstream scientists do not follow that method, as Percy Bridgman said, there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists.

The truth is we are all scientists, mainstream science is simply a community of people who mostly erroneously believe that only them can advance towards truth, and who erroneously believe that their conclusions are free of beliefs. — leo

You rightly pointed out: "Thinking, observation, experiment is carried out by all people, not just by mainstream scientists.". I'm going just a little further than that by suggesting this commonality in modus operandi to gain knowledge as a reason why people have a favorable view of science. After all this method is maxed out in the scientific method.

For example, society must be more complicated than people as it is made of people (same for a government, a business, a sports team, etc), but I doubt you find that very convincing...? — ZhouBoTong

ZhouBoTong

New York City? Civilization? Liverpool FC? Surely anything that is made up of humans is more complex than just humans?
— ZhouBoTong

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans? — Brett

Unfortunately, although I'd love to believe it, social entities, despite appearing distinct from the individual, is still structured around the basic body plan of an animal, the head being the most visible of all body-parts in social entities e.g. president, prime minister, king, emperor, etc. If social entities were more complex than humans then we'd see something like consciousness in it - a true complexity.

Great introduction to what is probably a very complex subject. Thanks.

I remember watching a TED talk on statistics where the speaker brings a contraption onto the stage and demonstrates the "logic" of Pascal's triangle with balls being rolled from the top of an arrangement of pegs in the shape of Pascal's triangle. The final result of the experiment is in accordance to Pascal's triangle with a few balls at the edges and most balls falling in the middle. The explanation for it was that there are more paths towards the middle than towards the edges.

I think the ergodic theory of history can be understood in these terms. Some points in our common history simply have multiple paths that approach it and that makes such points strong attractors.

As for the butterfly effect, I think it makes an appearance when there's enough deflection in the initial state to nudge the causal chain onto another path with a vastly differing endpoint.

Another thing I find troublesome is the definition of differences in initial conditions in the butterfly effect. As I understand it chaos theory basically claims that negligible differences in initial conditions lead to chaotic behavior but negligible in terms of a difference (subtraction) may not be the way to go. For instance the difference (subtraction) between 2 and 1 is a "negligible" 1 but actually 2 is twice the amount 1 is. I'm not a mathematician and all what I'm putting into words my be ignorant gibberish but, taken the way I suggest above, chaos theory seems to be a point of view too.

So, what is perceived as a negligible difference in the butterfly effect may actually be significant viewed in another, mathematical, sense. Imagine a pingpong ball balanced on the tip of a needle. The force required to tip the ball left or right is assuredly small and negligible but going left or right may result in hugely different outcomes. This implies that "negligible" as a description has the quality of a subjective feeling too.

As to how chaos theory, as generally understood, applies to history, I think it makes sense in terms of cumulative contributory causation. If we have enough men we can push a giant boulder even though the force applied by each is minimal. In addition, which way the boulder rolls will probably depend on that one negligible extra force applied by one man.

Are you suggesting that a barrage of possibilities is just brute force? — Brett

Yes.

There's nothing complex about that. But look what came out of it. — Brett

Yes, I know. Computers win at chess games not because they're intelligent but because they can find checkmates through brute force techniques. This raises the question, "Is having the capability to spit out an extremely large number of possibilities not intelligence?"

I think you might be limiting your thinking here by looking at it as either/or. We are evolved beings who are most aware of the underlying creative impetus in the universe. The ‘creativity’ I have is simply a capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity, etc.

Evolution, at base, IS this creative impetus. ‘Natural selection’ impacts only on life: those systems that are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a vague awareness of that, there and then. But the process is actually more fundamental. It is a limiting process defined by its opposition to this creative impetus in each interaction: by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. At a more fundamental level, this negation defines the periodic table, the planets, etc. But at the level of life, it defines the diversity of that life, setting limitations on what survives. — Possibility

An interesting point of view to consider creativity as a limitation. In my humble opinion creativity is about stepping beyond limits.

Brute force and numbers. What a combination. — Brett

Yes.

This what you stated and called as obvious, is actually a false sentence and a false proposition. Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are.

Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.

Your first and foremost premise is false. — god must be atheist

In what way are these, I think, machines, more complex than humans?

I think I'll give this topic a rest for now. Thanks for the interesting conversation. G'day. :smile:

There is no such thing as “the scientific method”.

http://rkc.org/bridgman.html
”In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists.”

There are plenty of opinions in ‘science’. Considering that countless theories can be made compatible with a given set of observations (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/), picking any of these theories as the “more correct” one and as the one to develop is a matter of opinion based on subjective criteria, such as ‘simplicity’, ‘beauty’, ‘appeal to authority’, ...

There are plenty of problems with peer review, it lets through many papers with logical and methodological flaws when their results agree with the consensus, and it blocks many papers without such flaws simply because they go against the consensus. The problem isn’t the process itself but the reviewers and more generally the lack of critical thinking about the whole scientific enterprise.

Meanwhile activities or ideas that are labeled ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘non-science’ can have more rationality in them than other ones labeled ‘science’.

Then I know the kind of reply I’ll get, “it’s the best thing we have” or “the best we can do”, no it’s not, these flaws could be fixed if only people cared to listen more and idolize Science less. So I’ll make a thread about that, until then I should probably stop replying to these kinds of posts venerating Science. — leo

Venerating science? I don't venerate science but the word "venerate" is a big hint as to what science is NOT, a religion and unlike religion, which is simply book after book of argumentum ad baculum, science encourages free thought, is aligned with our innate curiosity, is open to well-reasoned criticism, and is always about knowledge and not about how closely we regard a particular belief. Granted that there are unscrupulous scientists but, given the the stringent requirements for belief in science, it is easier to discover dishonesty in the sciences than in any other field.

You say there is no such thing as a scientific method? Did Einstein not have data and then did he not formulate a theory and did that theory not get tested?

Your argument is focused on the possibility of order an objection to the watchmaker analogy. You create the example of their being two rooms; one in disarray (Room A) and one the other in order (Room B), and when asking which one was designed/ lived in, the obvious answer is Room A. I agree with this example but I think it misses the point of the original objection because it only has two rooms and is not considering the chances of life existing/ the universe being finely tuned.
For this example to work I think there would need to be as many rooms as there are chances, however minuscule, for life to exist. Only having two rooms to choose from fails to address the main claim in the counter-argument. In the objection to the design argument one could claim that the chances of life and the universe existing are very improbable and we just happen by chance to live here where we can contemplate it.
For argument's sake let's say the probability of humans existing is one in one million. Similarly, when tweaking the room example, instead of their being two rooms, there would need to be one million rooms. If all these different rooms had arrangements in no particular order, seemingly at random, and I happen to come across one that is in a perceived discernable pattern, i'm not sure I would conclude that it was designed. If most people had the time to go through all these rooms, I think they would conclude that even though improbable, the neat room just happen by chance to be neat. I might claim that it seems suspicious, but I think it would be false to conclude that the room was designed. — Jesse

Order is a more unlikely event than disorder for the simple reason that there are more ways to be in the latter state than the former. I have taken that into my consideration and the 2 rooms represent and capture this truth adequately. There is a strong correlation between order and designer.

People have trouble thinking of something coming from nothing because they think of this materially, instead of like Buddhism, in which nothingness is higher than the universe, instead of parallel. People try to think of this as nothing "causing" something, but that's a material way of thinking. I like Buddhism because nothingness is spiritual for them. It is higher than all "humans and gods". One way to get there in thought is to mull about the reality that the only thing "potentially infinite" about an object is that it's infinity of parts can potentially be pointed out. Aristotle basically said that things have parts only potentially. That has no meaning. "Epoche" is the Greek form of meditation. "Ataraxia" is the Greek form of nirvana I think. — Gregory

I don't know how far this is true but a Buddhist acquaintance once told me that shunyata, despite it's obvious meaning - the denial of everything - doesn't lead to nihilism. All shunyata wants to achieve, he said, is to emphasize that eternalism is false.

Although this doesn't in anyway elucidate the meaning of shunyata it gives us some idea about the ultimate goal of Buddhism - to not fall to extremes and stay on the so-called middle path. This brings us to Aristotle doesn't it? His golden mean.

I find it intriguing that in Buddhism, though nirvana equates with an understanding of shunyata it chooses to emphasize the middle path and encourages us to avoid where shunyata naturally leads, nihilism. Perhaps it has to do with some kind of incompatibility between the truth (shunyata) and living among those who don't realize that truth. Whatever the case, Aristotle, despite not having commented on shunyata, seems to have understood the essence of Buddhism, the middle path, which to him was the golden mean.


I don't know how shunyata came to be part of Buddhist philosophy but I think Nagarjuna played an important role in its history.

Shunyata — Gregory

This (shunyata) is a concept that has always been to me what a flame has been to a moth - a light by which I may find a way to truth but alas the moth will be forever misled by the flame for it is not the sun.

I don't know if there's a clear unambiguous counterpart in western philosophy to shunyata but mysticism or esoteric forms of other religions come quite close what shunyata, as I understand it, is about viz. that the ultimate truth of reality isn't something comprehensible but like Aesop's grapes is clearly there, hanging from the boughs, in such inviting splendor but, unfortunately, lies just beyond the fox's reach. It's been quite some time since I gave up on the grapes of shunyata but I don't think they're sour although it seems quite paradoxical that there should be anything worthwhile in emptiness.

As a growing teenager I was attracted to science AND math. I'm trying to figure out why because the same can be said of various other disciplines and there really is no reason to prefer one subject over another. Each field of study has its own appeal depending on the criteria one selects. Perhaps it's a question of personality - some are just built for a particular field.

However, as should have been the case with all fields of study being equal, as a challenge and in value, it's the sciences that are always in the limelight. Other fields do get attention of course but the focus on them is proportionate to their closeness to the sciences.

There is something about science that attracts the crowds. As I mentioned other fields get a share of the peoples' adoration based on how similar they are to the sciences. Finding out this similarity may shed light on this "mystery". In my opinion science has a method, the so-called scientific method, that is a refined form of fact-finding system that is innate, reliable and universal. This innate, reliable and universal fact-finding system is rationality. I think it's rationality, the fact that it reaches it's zenith in the sciences, that makes science such a favorite of the masses.

That would mean that all that needs to be done to make other fields equally worthy of our attention would be to inject them with the right dose of rationality. I'm not saying that this isn't the case and that everything not-science is irrational. However, non-science subjects tend to have a higher percentage of opinion rather than anything in the sense of a scientific fact. Some, who're so inclined, may actually find this a more satisfying world where their own personal opinions join those of others to form an intricate web of views that homes in on the truth.

There then is a need for assurance that science is in fact rational. I think it is here that the scientific method, by itself, is inadequate. Scientists are, after all, people and people have flaws that make them as liable to errors as the next person you meet. It's at this point that we need peer review which separates the wheat from the chaff, science from non-science or, more accurately, good science from bad science.

:joke:

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine? — Brett

All I'm saying is that the simple fact that humans, endowed with intelligence + creativity which you'll agree are advantages when it comes to creating something, haven't managed to create evolution and all this while chemistry, with nothing more than chance, has produced life and humana. Isn't it at least ironic that intelligence can't compete with chance in the creativity department? Of course if we examine the situation carefully, random chance uses a brute force technique that surpasses any intelligence through sheer numbers.

I think I see where you’re going now. Personally, I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence.

Darwin’s theory, for me, is not a motivating but a limiting process on a more fundamental creative impetus that exists beyond space, time, value or meaning. It only requires a vague awareness of interaction to begin. But it’s language that limits our capacity to approach a shared understanding of this more than anything. — Possibility

Which is easier, evolving creativity or creating evolution?

At present the arrow of truth seems to be pointing toward the former, evolving creativity. The surest evidence I can think of is us - evolved creative beings who have difficulty creating evolution.

So I'm inclined not to believe your statement that:

It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence — Possibility

Yes, but we are back to Sider's position that the people in heaven are just barely different from those in hell. If they just did one more good thing they would be in. — ZhouBoTong

Well, I think the fact of the matter is that our intuition on morality is black, white and grey in between. We have no problem in declaring genocide to be bad or that saving a million live is good. These are clearly extreme enough to not cause confusion. The problem is the region of grey between extremes, a region most of us occupy and is therefore all the more important.

This particular take on morality presents a problem where heaven-hell is concerned because the latter is binary in nature and so can't handle the moral grey zone. If cleverly constructed a color model of morality, black at one end and white at another end, blending into each other with grey in between, will be seamless enough to prevent us from drawing a clear cut-off line in the middle grey area. Sider uses this model and I think it's incomplete, ergo erroneous, and causes the confusion here.

Morality viewed the above way is is only half the story. We also quantify morality, albeit vaguely. We have the word "redeem" that suggests a kind of numerical correction to a moral flaw. As if good and bad are positive and negative quantities that cancel each other as in integer arithmetic. Sorry I couldn't find a word to the opposite effect of a moral flaw negating goodness. Perhaps you can educate me on that. Anyway I'd like to choose an integer number line because it reflects quantitative morality well enough.

We now have people populating the integer number line as per their moral standing. Bad would be negative and good would be positive with zero being amoral or morally indifferent. In this number line model of morality Sider can make the case that -1 is very close in moral standing to +1 and yet one ends up in hell and the other in paradise. The problem is that Sider is thinking in terms of difference between two moral standings; -1 and +1 are just two moral points apart which is negligible. But what about the sign (-/+) on the numbers being considered? Good and bad are opposites and so the sign (-/+) is as essential as the numerical value of a moral standing and can't be ignored. So, yes -1 and +1 are close enough to each other for the difference between them (here 2) to be negligible but a negative is clearly different to a positive and the destination hell/heaven is as much dependent on the sign as the size of the moral standing.

1. Everyone doesn't know Yahweh
2. If everyone doesn't know Yahweh then either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
So,
3. Either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
4. If either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish that everyone know of him then proselytizing is unwarranted
So,
5. Proselytizing is unwarranted

I think premise 2 is questionable because there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time.

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it.

:joke:

You'e given us a broad outline of what you want to do with logic. I've agreed in principle that logic, in fact all knowledge, requires the existence of limits for basic intelligibility.

Now you need to show us the details.

Simplicity:
1.the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.
2. the quality or condition of being plain or natural.
3. a thing that is plain, natural, or easy to understand.

Notice 2 is quite different from 1. 3 tries to combine 1 & 2, but just ends up highlighting that simplicity could describe a thing that is "plain", or a thing that is "natural", or a thing that is "easy to understand". Notice that any one thing we call "simple" could be any one, or all 3. That is all I have been pointing out. There is nothing "simple" about trying to label things "simple". Similarly, to try and rank things in order from simplest to most complex would be nearly impossible unless we are comparing very similar items (a double decker bus is more complex than a single decker bus, but what is more complex, a piece of paper or a glass of water?). — ZhouBoTong

I agree that my definition is incomplete but it does reflect a general view or even intuition on the subject of simplicity and complexity. You listed some lexical definitions and all of them have a common denominator in being expressible/transmissible as information in fewer numbers than things that are considered complex.

Let's take everyday examples to see what people's intuitions are about simplicity and complexity. When we read a novel we see differences in characters that can be expressed in terms of simplicity and complexity. A simple character in a novel is what people call one-dimensional -
having a small inventory of emotions, views, whatnot. These characters are easy to understand.

On the other hand, a complex character will be one with a large repertoire of emotions, views, relationships, etc. Such characters are difficult to understand.

It seems the generally accepted view on simplicity-complexity for a character in a novel can be rephrased in terms of a numerical difference in views, relationships, emotions, etc.

I only extend this general view to the whole of the simplicity-complexity issue.

The law of non-contradiction is just a part of limics - the part that says that paradoxes are not possible. Limics has other properties like everything that has to do with analysis of logical rules that don't form paradoxes. Thus Limics is not the same as the law of non-contradiction.

Also, limics is not just about uncertainty - if you limit all but one possible option off, you are left with certainty in that one option.

When we don't have the information that x=2 and we only know that x is between 1 and 3, the only thing we can say with our information is that x is between 1 and 3. This is not redundant. It is the correct description of the information we have. x=2 would be incorrect description. — Qmeri

Another problem I see is that limics if foundational as in it's the big strong rock on which you want to build your castle on then it leads to an infinite regress of sorts. For instance declare a limit x in your theory. How would you express x? If your theory is sound then we need another limit y to express x and then another limit z to express y and so and so forth.

Comments...

Also if you could be so kind to provide us with a numbered list of your theories foundations it would be great.

Let me get a few words in.

No one really bothers that there are two distinct kinds of knowledge viz. inductive and deductive.

The difference between the two is usually said to rest on the degree of certainty in the truth being argued for. Deductive knowledge is certain because given true premises and a valid argument form the conclusion can only be denied on grounds of insanity.

Inductive knowledge is a different beast altogether. No amount of justification can guarantee the truth of an inductively inferred conclusion.

This is basic or as some are fond to call it "baby" logic. No disagreements at all.

Now consider the JTB theory of knowledge within such a framework. JTB theory has no problems with deductively derived knowledge for it's impossible for the conclusion to be false given true premises and a valid argument form.

It's only in the domain of inductive argumentation that we find justification insufficient to make an inference to the truth. It is this gap between justification and truth, characteristic only of inductive arguments, which is inhabited by Gettier-type problems. I'm quite confident that all counterexamples to the JTB theory are inductive-based arguments and it surprises me why that's such a big deal. After all inductive arguments are known to be problematic in this way.

Deductive knowledge is immune to Gettier-type problems.

It's like someone who knows he has an ulcer but gets surprised when his tummy hurts.

:joke:

The idea of Limics, where literally everything about everything is explained through this "limitation information" is quite new, I think. — Qmeri

In what way is your limics different to the law of non contradiction.

A problem I see with limics is that it appears to be synonymous with uncertainty in that it offers a range bounded by a lower limit and an upper limit without specifying a particular value. In other words it seems designed for inexactitude rather than precision and that is in variance with what logic is supposed to be - exact and certain.


Another issue is that it seems to be redundant. For example saying that x is between the limits of 1 and 3 and an integer is superfluous when compared to saying x = 2. Why use so many unnecessary words when what you want to achieve can be done in fewer.

When humans create art, they create an expression of reality that is more complex than the materials that constitute the artwork. — Possibility

Agreed but no art is more complex than the artist him/herself. That's what I mean.

Plus, ‘create’ is different from ‘evolve’ — Possibility

There is a difference between creativity and evolution but if one subscribes to Darwin's theory, the former evolved from the latter. We now ask which is a better tool in terms of ability to produce "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", creativity or what has been termed blind evolution which is self-explanatory?

We have the following to go with:

1. The evident fact of simplicity evolving by what is a random process into complexity

2. Evolved human creativity and intelligence, arguably the dream team in the area of "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity.

It's akin to a blind man with zero skills creating a masterpiece while at the same time a man with 20/20 vision, trained in the arts, fails to even produce something that can be considered a poor counterfeit.

Of course there could be other reasons for this state of affairs like time and incomplete knowledge and so this argument is applicable only to the present.

Well someone could be a good Samaritan today and a murderer tomorrow...right? — ZhouBoTong

Although I didn't consider such a scenario specifically, I also think it doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly that there is a moral calculus involved that can decide the net moral standing of a person. The way moral issues are handled on earth is that opposite moral actions cancel out and there's a net moral standing, good/bad, that each person has. Decisions can be based on that can't it?

The rule of thumb seems to be that people have zero tolerance for a moral stain on a person who is considered good. Even the slightest moral fault is sufficient to reduce even a saint to the same status as a depraved criminal fit for the slammer.

On the other hand, good if found in bad people is considered a redeeming quality worthy of note but yet not to an extent that his crimes are forgiven.

There seems to be a slight imbalance in the equation in that bad carries more force than good and one tiny black spot is capable of negating even the whitest of the white while the converse isn't true


So you see there does exist a calculus with which we can reckon the net moral character of a person and why suppose such is not true of divine judgment?

Hence time cannot be change in my opinion. However, time can be an essential component of change (or not) and that is the crucial aspect of the relation between these two concepts. This question still remains unaddressed.

We agree with the conclusion that time isn't change but l don't think your argument for the independence of time from change holds weight. — Wittgenstein

I'll take another shot at it. This time I'll use change.

Imagine a person walking and an ice cube stationary in a cup. The person walking changes position because there's a difference in her relative position with other objects.

The ice cube on the other hand also changes - it melts into a puddle of water in the cup - but the change hasn't occurred in space for it was stationary. Yet we can frame the history if the ice cube as it was like this before, it is like this now and then became like this after. This non-spatial domain where change can be sequenced as before, now, and after is time.

I like to start with an (over)simplification that we can agree on and then work our way up from there. Lets see if can agree on the 'basics'.

We know life at it most basic level can be defined as a chemical process and then speculate how 'life' might have conceivably evolved from there. — ovdtogt

That's a good strategy. Answer the easy questions first and then attempt the tough ones is a good technique.

It has worked so far right? The world is lit up with electricity, we jet across continents, we do organ transplants, etc. These are all a piece of cake before the mind/consciousness problem, a compelling description of which has eluded even the best among us.

It's not an error to start from the simple and then proceed to the complex. :up:

What a strange coincidence. A few days ago I was in my bedroom when my nephew came in, saw a badge lying on the table that read "everything's possible" and immediately grabbed it for himself. He left and I felt that it would be wonderful if what the badge said were true. World hunger, disease, fairies, all sorts of pleasing images crossed my mind until...

I realized such a world would be utter chaos. Our knowledge i.e. the sense we make of this world appears to be based on the possibility of compartmentalization of the world. We create categories that are as precise as possible and use them to make sense of the world and an essential feature for this is a limitation of possibilities. For instance the concept of human is made comprehensible because certain properties don't go with what is NOT a human i.e. there's a limitation to what can or can't have a given property. To make categories and thus comprehend the world we need properties that are the exclusive domain of certain objects/events i.e. there has to be limitations.

Where logic is concerned, limitation takes the form of the law of non-contradiction which prohibits, on pain of insanity, the conjunction of a proposition and its denial. As you can see this fits with your views on the matter quite well and prompts me to ask if this theory of Limics isn't already extant and that too in a very important way in the form of the law of non-contradiction?

I never realized it but it seems, at least in the classical world we live in, that without the law of non-contradiction, insects would speak fluent german, dogs would breathe underwater, germans would have six legs, fish would bark, all in all a world of utter confusion.

I think I agree with you about the critical role of limitations in logic and all knowledge.

I was just saying that there may be some grand truth regarding which kind of censorship is righteous and which kind is evil. — frank

There is left to doubt when censorship is bad - an oppressive regime is usually lurking in the shadows. That leaves us with what is viewed as "good" censorship and that as I pointed out is only to snuff out the spark that ignites a conflagration. The dry tinder for a fiery disaster exists in every and all societies just waiting for poorly considered words to ignite it. The fabric of society is usually strained to breaking point; saved only by the better judgment of a few sensible people. This tension makes the peace we enjoy nothing more than an uneasy truce in a society fractured by ideology, race, religion, etc. In other words "good" censorship while effective in preventing large scale violence, is actually a symptom of an underlying social illness - discrimination based on whatever that is that divides societies.

To find simplicity in complex 'reality' is the essence of 'knowledge'. We are looking for building blocks not for buildings. Try to find a definition of life in 1 sentence and work your way up from there. — ovdtogt

Agreed. Simplicity has a special status in knowledge, especially science where it is an important condition for a good hypothesis. However, you will agree that reality has a richness, both in variety and depth, of experiences that should be appreciated for its complexity and simplifying everything verges on oversimplification.

Its a classical question and l want to know why you support one viewpoint or another. Maybe there is a third alternative, such as rejecting the question as being wrong.

If everything in the universe stopped moving in an absolute sense. Will time still exist or is it independent of any such circumstances ?

Now the next step in answering this question seems to be. What do you mean by exist when referring to time ?
In my opinion, this question is identical to the earlier question and doesn't really resolve anything.

Can a philosophical approach really tackle this question as the physicist have more concrete ways of dealing with it. Is it up to them to resolve this debate ? — Wittgenstein

To the extent that I can tell, time combines with space to provide a universal frame of reference, space-time, for everything in the universe. To use a theatrical analogy it provides a stage where every event and object in our universe must occur and exist respectively.

It seems space has been defined as a boundless 3 dimensional extent.

The definition of time in Wikipedia suggests a progression of existence from the past, through the present, and into the future.

The Einsteinian concept of time as a fourth dimension added onto the 3 dimensions of space to create space-time makes complete sense when we think of it in terms of information. How much information is sufficient to pinpoint the location of an object/event in our world? We need 3 spatial coordinates and 1 time coordinate. Why not just consider time a fourth dimension then?

One thing that might give us insight into the nature of time is how the arrow of time is explained in terms of increasing entropy. The relevant bit here being the difference, the lack of resemblance due to entropy between the past and the present and the present and the future. This suggests that without change there would be no direction to time. The big question then is is change just a direction indicator for time or is change time itself?

Let's consider the scenario you presented, a world without motion, as a standin for the real scenario we need to consider - a world without change. In such a world there won't be a direction to time, nor will there be a way to measure time. However, this doesn't mean there is no time for the simple reason that even in the world we're familiar with there are things that don't change e.g. physical constants or mathematical truths etc. but that doesn't imply that there is no time, does it? Ergo, even if time is measurable and has direction only because of change, time isn't change and doesn't draw the essence of its existence from change.

What is time then?

Let's assume for the moment that time isn't real and therefore all is space, space being something we're more familiar with. Such a viewpoint initially makes sense after all if you look at an analog watch time is marked off at regular distances (space) and time seems to be just the distance the hands of a watch travels. However this illusion doesn't last long since we still need to have the hands moving at a particular speed or rate for it to give time accurately and this requires time to be something independent of space.

Yes, I understand that. So then, intelligence can be viewed as a threat to its host. — Brett

Anything's possible.

That’s a list. I as really alluding to the idea of whether intelligence is an advantage or mistake of evolution, or if it has its limits and where those limits might be? Or if we can step back and observe or correct our intelligence? Or is intelligence a force that occupies the mind, like a virus? — Brett

The list I provided was meant to show how intelligence can lead to global catastrophes. After all man-made stuff like the industrial revolution and the nuclear arms race have been paraded to the public as real existential threats.

Ok, do you see that you basically agreed with Sider and the OP all along? — bongo fury

I agree insofar as Sider thinks reward/punishment should be proportionate to the virtue/crime but this doesn't mean two morally indistinguishable people will have opposite fates in the afterlife which the OP was about. If anything's amiss then it's that heaven doesn't discriminate between the just good and the best and the same applies to just bad and worst in hell.

However, punishment in hell is usually said to adhere to the proportionality principle which makes Sider's complaint pointless. As to why heaven is never portrayed as having a hierarchy of rewards commensurate to virtues I have an explanation viz. that to have such a system is tantamount to discrimination and inequality which isn't good.

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." — Gnomon

:lol:

What I think we humans all have in common is that we think we're right if we're doing it and we're wronged if they're doing it to us. — frank

What are you going on about? Are you saying that all the goodness we see is just an outward appearance; that it hides a more sinister agenda? That this is a dog eat dog world, fierce competition everywhere and anytime? Are you trying to sell cynicism through a discussion on censorship?

That’s a very interesting point. I’d like to hear more on that. — Brett

Global warming, nuclear weapons, pollution, climate change, etc.

The problem of evil (as a religious problem) stems from the assumption that "God" is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I think we should questions the assumptions about God as a starting point for religious philosophy. None of these divine attributes are required in order to have a fundamentally religious outlook or inclination about nature and they give good grounds to doubt the existence of such a god and subsequently of all gods when stated as divine requirements. — prothero

I agree. There were/are versions of religion where deities are powerful but not omni-powered. There usually is a God-king like Zeus or the like but Zeus can be bested using trickery, etc. Even in such a convenient setup Epicurus managed to see the problem of evil and formulated a pretty good argument. With monotheism wherein omini-powers are fundamental to one god the problem becomes even more pronounced.

All I want to say is that the free will defense is untenable. The situation we're in as far as the problem of evil is concerned is very similar to a particular strain of moral dilemma I've seen many, including myself, post on forums like this which basically puts the protagonist in a position that restricts his choices to the point that choice is merely an illusion. I find the promise of eternal happiness in paradise and eternal torture in hell to be in the same vein - there really is no choice between happiness and suffering is there?

That whether you say it's good or bad just depends on which end of it you're on. Not exactly a profound insight, I know. I've tended to be reflexively against it, so it's a new idea for me. — frank

I feel you're using "good" and "bad" too flexibly. For me the agenda of the censors determines good or bad in a moral sense. If the censors want to prevent a violent mob causing mayhem then they're good. On the other hand if the censors are in cahoots with an authority that impedes basic freedoms then they're bad.