I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me. — unenlightened

Well, I suppose it is harder for us to see our own selfishness/stupidity because we don't want to, of course.

Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is.

Very often stupidity is not a failure of intelligence, it is a moral failure. Selfishness ignores the good and leads to behaviors that others find incomprehensible. As you say, intelligent people can do stupid things. This is because they use intelligence in the wrong way - they are clever. Selfishly so. Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good.

Subjective views are part of an overarching reality. 'As above, so below'. Nature is universal and tells us about the world in general. For example, nature tells us a lot about geometry/mathematics but mathematics is also mathematical, obviously, but without the need for nature to tell us so. Induction from experience goes hand in hand with deduction. There are no real contradictions in nature, only more or less accurate perceptions. The spider is right and so are you - to an extent.

A tautology is a logical statement that does not contradict the axiomatic set within which that statement is made.

Axiom 1: All hyenas play chess.
Axiom 2: Joe lives with two hyenas.
Statement: Joe lives with two chess players.

The statement is a tautology regardless of whether the axioms are true.

Regardless of whether you felt the need for her to recriprocate, a relationship has to be a two way thing. It won't work otherwise. Sometimes a person will feed off your energy like a vampire. Avoid them.

There was once a guy in a war and the bullet killed him. He didn't see it coming...

To me, Infinity and Existence denote the same. — Philosopher19

Existence is, from the beginning. It is eternal and infinite. That which exists is eternal. Finite things are events in eternity.

I tend to agree. I think comedy is one of the finest arts and expressions of 'non linear' intelligence.

Objects are not ultimate realities. The hydrogen atom is an image of energy. When energy is configured in a certain pattern it forms an image; hydrogen, carbon, chair, table...
Matter can evaporate back to pure energy. This happens all the time in stars. In principle the entire universe can evaporate back to energy. If this happened it would disappear, along with physical spacetime.

After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[15]:§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long timescales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[15]:§VE It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will reach heat death.[15]:§VID
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#:~:text=The%20heat%20death%20of%20the,sustain%20processes%20that%20increase%20entropy.

"But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes."

Brain processes are physical images of thought. The object is an image of energy/spirit/mind.

"What number is "i"? You see? It makes no sense as a question, because you're not even referring to it with a numeral to begin with."

Why do you want to make 'i' a 'number'? It is a component in the logic of mathematics. 'And' is not a number but it has a place in mathematics. Like with with 'or' and 'if' etc. See "Logical Operators". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

"Negative numbers don't exist, I don't see how they could. Imaginary numbers don't exit (where is the square root of minus one apple? I don't see it on my kitchen table), and complex numbers in general don't exist."

Why do numbers have to count things? Complex numbers define space and geometric concepts. And if they do count things note that complex numbers are used in counting Reimann's zeros in the zeta function.

"So, the world has transfinite ordinal numbers. Or does it?"

You are being too literal. That mathematics is real does not mean every mathematical object is real. It means that real fundamentals can be understood in mathematical terms.

"Theory means human abstract thinking on the world phenomenon, objects and events."

To abstract means to 'take from'; to lift the math from the reality.

"What are the 4 points"
That was a mistake. I was thinking about another function. No rational points.

"x^2+y^2=pi^2" - x and y will be irrational which is why all end points on they hypotenuse (pi) will be irrational.
Here is something on it https://mathoverflow.net/questions/71305/shortest-irrational-path

What about Combinatorics, Group theory, Set theory, Boolean algebra etc.?
The world is exactly the way these disciplines describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics

"Matter itself is not energy. Matter combined with motion is energy."

When matter and anti matter collide they are transformed into pure energy.

"They divided 1 year into 12 months, 1 months into 30 or 31 days, and 1 day into 24 hours so on. Math doesn't describe anything. Humans do using numbers and time."

It is only possible to do this if reality is intrinsically mathematical.

Matter is energy. When energy 'condenses' into a particular pattern it forms an object; a hydrogen atom, a chair, a table. These patterns are images. Matter is not an ultimate substance, it is an image of energy. Physical time is also a pattern that emerges with matter. Physical spacetime is just another physical object/pattern except it has an extra dimension. Just as one can have a mathematical description of a chair or any physical object you can also have a mathematical description of spacetime. That description is general relativity. This describes the shape of spacetime. It describes how objects move in space. So time is a mathematical description of HOW change happens. Change happens according to a certain pattern and that pattern is time.
Ultimately time is a mathematical system. All mathematical systems are time because they describe how mathematical objects behave. How does the graph of a cubic equation change? It changes according to the algebra of the cubic equation. Algebra is mathematical time.

All events in the whole universe happens in time i.e. in order. But number operations don't happen in time order. They happen in the conceptual world, which is devoid of time.
Hence 5+7 =12, 7+5=12, the order of the events don't matter coming to the answers or results.
Even in the formal logic a ^ b = b ^ a — Corvus

The definition of time as change is not satisfactory. Time is the way change happens. That is, it is the logic of change. Relativity describes physical time. Change happens according to a certain mathematical pattern. This pattern is time. Mathematics is also a pattern and a time order. It is mathematical time or abstract time. The kind of time we refer to depends on the objects that inhabit that time order - physical objects, energy, mathematical objects.

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

Saying mathematics exists independently of our minds and saying numbers exist independently are two different things. Mathematical truth, as it really is, may be something we have never imagined.

@Michael "3. If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then human beings could not attain knowledge of them. Therefore,"

Why would consciousness be limited to physical spacetime? Mysticism asserts that consciousness transcends the physical.

Prima facie, it may sound counterintuitive to state that ‘there are infinitely many prime numbers’ is false. But if numbers do not exist, that's the proper truth-value for that statement (assuming a standard semantics). In response to this concern, Field 1989 introduces a fictional operator, in terms of which verbal agreement can be reached with the platonist. In the case at hand, one would state: ‘According to arithmetic, there are infinitely many prime numbers’, which is clearly true. Given the use of a fictional operator, the resulting view is often called mathematical fictionalism.

Can't one just say there are potentially infinitely many prime numbers? Also one can say that-
1/p1 + 1/p2 + 1/p3 +...diverges to infinity where these p are the primes.

But what does it mean to say there are infinitely many? What does 'are' mean? Does it mean they exist or potentially exist?

Math is a product of the human mind, and a very useful for modeling reality for human purposes. — Tzeentch

Well maybe God thought of numbers first so they exist in God's mind?

Here's a thing-

On the x-axis mark the line 0 to 1. You have one unit made of infinitely many points. These points are dimensionless; they have no width. But if you assert you are at 1 unit on the x-axis how did you get there? By lining up an infinity of dimensionless points? If this is the case you assert 0 + 0 + 0...for infinity add up to extension or width. So it would seem that an infinity of zero widths add up to a unit of width. Go figure.

Infinity is just another concept to say, that it has no ending. — Corvus

Infinity is all numbers together. The whole set, be it Aleph Null or higher.
Aleph Null is the natural numbers in an infinite set. Aleph One may be the set of real numbers, but see The Continuum Hypothesis.

Numbers exist as sets. They are generated by iteration and partition-
Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
Continue ///////////////////////////...
Partition each step in the process-
{/}, {//}, {///},...
These sets are 1, 2, 3,...
So does {//} depend on {/}? Seemingly. Does {/} cause {//}? I don't think so.
The cause of {//} is iteration on {/} and subsequent partition into a set.

In Cantor's system counting is not 1,2,3,...it is about a one to one correspondence-
1 -> a
2 -> b
3 -> c etc.
If an infinity can be matched in this way it is Aleph Null. If not, it is bigger.

Draw a circle on the X, Y axis with radius pi. All points on the circumference except 4 of them are irrational numbers. No others are rational, even though there is and infinity of both rational and irrational. This is because the irrationals are denser.

"3. Reality Requires Observation:
The universe exists only when observed. Without observation, there’s only potentiality—an idea resonating with quantum mechanics and idealism."

This is a carry over from quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat is not meant to be taken seriously, it is meant to illustrate some difficulties scientists encountered in their experiments. Observation and detection should not be conflated, they are two separate things. Observation is not relevant except for practical purposes. Detection is when a quantum event leaves a trace effect on an experimental apparatus. (eg a spot on a photographic plate). Detection is what matters. There is no such thing as a dead/alive cat.

Mathematics is the highest discourse because it is always true.

I once had a conversation online and this guy said that Nietzsche said the (physical) universe does not contain any ethical principle. But he also argued that the ethical person is 'rationally' defined in modern thinking. So I asked him how can the ethical person arise from a universe that has no ethical potential? This is a contradiction as far as Nietzsche is concerned. The only resolution seems to be that ethics arises from outside the physical universe.

Moreover, the third factor of physics is Law : organizing & governing principles that are most often expressed in terms of abstract Mathematical relationships : Logic. Laws are also defined metaphorically as-if they are the intention of a powerful rule-maker. Yet in practice they are simply regularities that allow a society or a world to operate smoothly & efficiently, and in conformance to the Will of the ruling authority. — gnomon

The regularities of the laws of nature are, as you seem to imply, often seen as laws like tax laws that are imposed by an external agent but in reality the law and nature are the same thing. The scientific laws of nature are not imposed on nature, they are nature. But the question remains; even if there are no laws external to the things that look like they are obeying laws, why does nature produce such finely balanced sublime structures? Why is nature so sophisticated? So the question concerning a God-like law maker is rephrased as a question concerning a God-like nature maker. Why does nature produce the sublime?

If we observe a billion examples of evolution on other planets and discover that life never gets to the multicellular stage on any of them, that would be evidence that we were either really lucky, or something intervened. Such a finding would definitely give a boost to the hypothesis that evolution here wasn't completely natural. — RogueAI

It is interesting that as soon as the ancient earth was ready to sustain primitive life, life got started right away.

I believe in evolution but the Theory Of Evolution is woefully incomplete. I don't believe mutations can create a person, the works of Shakespeare, a Mozart symphony...

If you consider it in terms of photons time travel is not possible.
Suppose on Jan 1, 2000, there is a light source at A. Photons travel to B.
Now a time traveler leaves on Jan 1, 2010 and appears on Jan 1, 2000, at C, the mid point between A and B.
The time traveler blocks the light and it does not reach B.
So, does the light reach B or not?

The original singularity of our universe would be considered uncaused and self caused at the same time, according to how science approaches it. — Gregory

Why would the singularity be uncaused? Eternity precedes time.

The fact that different religions have some overlap doesn't explain why people emphatically categorize themselves as belonging to different religious groups, and why these groups are geographically isolated. — Brendan Golledge

The essential teaching of religion is The Way. I am the way. It is the Tao or Right Living as the Buddhists would say. The external forms of religion vary for lost of reasons but they are secondary and have many causes.

I was just asserting that this thing we experience was interpreted in a religious context in the past, whereas it is interpreted in a psychological context today. — Brendan Golledge

But what is the psyche? Ask a psychologist and see how funny the answer is. Spirit is the traditional word. Modern psychology has drained all spiritual reality of its substance and replaced it with abstraction. It is largely a tautology that has relabeled everything spiritual and convinced many that "it's just psychological" - an expression that tells us nothing. Semantics. "English is what Chinese would speak if Chinese was English" :confused:

"If you doubt that truth for humans is socially constructed, then answer me this (I would genuinely like an answer if you have one): If truth for people is not socially constructed, then why are religious and political beliefs correlated to geography?"

Different societies have different languages to express spiritual matters but the differences are often secondary and not a measure of 'truth'. For example Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Judaism have much in common.

"How did people believe that they experienced God? I have read that the word “unconscious” was used for the first time in Germany in the 18th century. If people didn’t even have a word for the thing, it’s likely that they didn’t have a concept of it either. But if there is no unconscious to make your thoughts and feelings pop into your head, where do these things come from? Ancient people believed that they came from polytheistic gods (Ares = anger, Aphrodite = lust …) and demons and angels. They believed in their gods because they really did experience them. We just do not today believe in their interpretations of their experiences."

You seem to be saying that 'the unconscious' explains things. But that is a tautology. What is the unconscious? To answer that you have to know what the mind is. It seems to me that the unconscious is 'knowledge beyond language'. That is, knowledge that enters our minds through awareness but is not yet translated into conscious language.

"It seems logical that there is a limit to what God can add to himself personally, since he is infinity, and anything added to infinity is still infinity. So, God does not add to himself directly, but creates an infinity (or at least a very large number) of finite things."

Not necessarily. You can have an infinity of odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7,...

And to that you can add something different; even numbers 2, 4, 6,...

1. consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

It is moot whether these natural explanations are such. Each case would have to be discussed individually.
Often 'supernatural explanations' are very secondary to essential religious teaching.

2. inconsistency of world religions

Religion is a language that is meant to express spiritual truths.
As such it is subject to all kinds of distortions and mistranslations (not just literal).
But essential religious teaching is concerned with The Way or The Tao. There is a right way of being
and a wrong way.

3. weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics

Debatable.

4. increasing diminishment of god

Unclear what this means. Human knowledge does not diminish God.

5. fact that religion runs in families

That can be true of atheism. Also, consider a spirit that desires to be born into a religious family (birds of the feather...)...

6. physical causes of everything we think of as the soul

Physical systems are associate with mind. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

7. complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing

Many would disagree. Besides, why would God submit to this?

8. slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs

Vague.

9. failure of religion to improve or clarify over time

True to an extent but that tells you more about human failure than anything else.
Even religion can become neglected, distorted.

10. complete lack of solid evidence for god's existence

Debatable. In fact that is the debate.

And I'm saying your statement is nonsense because science is not used to address "the big questions" so it can't be even "no improvement" on them. That 's like saying: "Well finally that bachelor has stopped beating wife — 180 Proof

Well that's just semantics. In common parlance 'science' has a broader meaning and the word is used loosely.

Here's a headline: "Security Council meeting called to discuss Moscow's recent devastating attacks on the key port of Odesa immediately following its refusal to ..."

Now, we are not going to split hairs over what 'Moscow' means in this context.

I guess you do not understand this my point... — 180 Proof

I do. I was responding to this-

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations — jorndoe

I'm simply saying that science is no improvement on philosophy/religion when it comes to the big questions. I'm not criticizing science or saying it should be anything other than what it is.

Well, how has science answered the big questions such as the ones I pointed out? Science is not philosophy so there's no point in pretending it is. It is not an improvement on philosophy. Besides, philosophy/religion is far more sophisticated than 'God did it'.

you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy and/or employ philosophy to undertake scientific tasks. — 180 Proof

I'm not criticizing science. I'm simply saying it is not an improvement on 'God did it'.