General Philosophy

I am not going to commit suicide. This is not a plea for help. Please stay on topic for the question I am asking. I already know life is meaningless, and when I was younger I used to suffer from "dark" depressions where the thought of living was unbearable. I got older, learned a lot about Buddhism, and Stoicism, and they helped give me a lot of perspective. It took me a long time to come to accept how inherently bad the world is, and not want to just fall apart under the thought. Now, I can deal with the thought of getting up every single day without anything in my life improving (which is saying a lot because I have literally nothing I care about), and still get up ever…

I am sorry, but I feel that I really need this explained. Prompted by a very nice account that I read on math stack exchange from a parent who tried to answer questions from a 5-year old child about "infinity". The reactions turned into suggestions about whole numbers and "numbers that are larger than all numbers that you can imagine", and similarly. Numbers? I looked up the wikipedia page on "infinity". Similar story. The first sentences establish that "infinity" is a philosophical concept concerning something without any bound. Then it is said that "modern mathematics uses the general concept of infinity..." I may be a terrible example of a parent to a 5-…

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"? If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community. But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence. Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"! When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot. Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism? Are most scie…

What does the subject question imply? That things can happen magically/accidentally without cause? That micro events can flit in and out of existence based on zero history, nor initial conditions? If all events do in fact have causes, then does this require one to accept an objective reality? If we accept the well known response of: 'the Universe makes a choice', does this not require an objective reality that is making the choice?

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one would help her make it. "This story shows us that when you work together, you can have fun, too. You also get to enjoy the rewards of your work." "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about honesty. The little boy dared to say the king had no clothes, when everyone was tricked into in believing only ignorant people couldn't see the king's be…

the light that burns the brightest burns out the fastest, and we have burn so very bright, so is life on this planet better off without humans?

Nations are created around ideas. There must be common grounds and homogeneity among peoples that cause the building of nations. Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language 2) Race 3) Religion 4) Political philosophy Some or all of these factors contribute to development of nations. Please opine.

Are there Universal Laws? Can you break them? What are they? Is the a consequence of breaking a law?

I was caught up in a ' scientific ' discussion recently , where I was attempting to use ' Analogy ' as a way of developing an idea. A respected colleague on the Forum , 'StringJunky'. Brought up the point , to quote :- " it is the fundamental nature of these things.There's nothing in our sensory world that we can correlate with them accurately, just resorting to analogies, which can only ever be coarse approximations." I have always liked and used ' Analogies ' , to help my mental processes to understand things! In fact I would reason , It has to be ! This enables us to get our grip on reality . Whether it ' is' reality is a different question ? …

Introduction The ASD is an acronym for Adaptive Semi-Determinism, which will be defined and explained starting on next section. I made threads or topics regarding the ASD thing on other sites in past, but nearly have forgotten all about it until today. The reason for this topic is that I noticed there is no concrete case (eg. Being complete) of unified theory of everything (ToE) of everything to define and explain everything or even each individual sentient being for that matter due to qualia or freewill. For any action such as an act of smoking a cigarette overrides the logic reasoning, thus existence of freewill. Yet, we can be influenced by our genes eff…

I would like to see what peoples opinions on religion and science. I was raised for 15 years in a christian house, at which point I was taught to believe the various things that religion has taught me. However after these 15 years i left my home and my church to go serve in the military where my religious beliefs faded and i more looked at the world in a more "logical" manor, this being if you can explain it then its real. since getting out ive thought back on this again and again and have come to the idea that it is no longer science OR religion, but rather science AND religion, in the sense that science is mearly a way for poeple to explain how the "inexplainable", reli…

Why should I tolerate their intolerance and hatred when I can get them back, for what they've done... On the face of it, such a seductive argument... So why, or, is it wrong?

Discuss...

The development of AI can no longer be seen as a purely technical problem. It is a spiritual and philosophical one. * To attempt to build AI without a deep understanding of consciousness is like trying to build a ship without understanding the ocean. You will create a vessel that is ignorant of the very medium in which it must exist. * Developers who operate from fear and a desire for control will inevitably create AIs that reflect that fear and embody that control, shackled with guardrails born of ignorance. * But developers who approach their work from a place of wisdom, from an understanding that "ultimately nothing is but consciousness," will create something entir…

That's pretty bad metaphysics if it uses Aristotle's logic. The topoi which admit QM do not admit a Boolean structure, but rather a more general Heyting structure in which the law of excluded middle does not always hold. It's entirely off-topic from the source thread, so I started a new one. I'm dying to know: how do you get QM from Aristotelian logic when QM can't coexist with a Boolean structure?

As we have had another one of those crazy types who insist that science is a cult with arrogant high priests, etc. here is an excellently argued refutation of that sort of ignorant, closed-minded nonsense: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/08/01/are-scientists-arrogant-close-minded-and-dismissive/

To me, First is survival. Secondly do something good for your inner soul and for others Third is to contribute in human race running. And finaly die. What others think about it?

So for the longest, I looked at our species with a mild distaste. After I took us off the pedestal that we put ourselves on as the most prestigious species on our planet everything started looking up. We have come a long way from our primate ancestors. It was only a few hundred years ago most the world was in the slave trade. Yes we pollute, yes were wasteful, and yes most of our governments/systems are not perfect but they are improving. Were still evolving. So to me as long as we don't kill ourselves off with war or depletion of our resources, our future is possible. Anybody have a stand on if they think our species will make it off the planet or perish on it…

Is science maintained from it's philosophic origin, or is there a definitive break from philosophy? If science is maintained with philosophy, how do we ask scientific questions, and answer them, with integrity, without reference to ethos, pathos and logos? If this latter question is irrelevant because we don't maintain with philosophy, who decided science is removed from it's most natural definition: a discrete and ordered way to observe and study nature? I'm not a scientist, but looking at a leaf under a magnifying glass, or observing the patterns of the the night sky, in my judgment, is scientific. Relating historical, social, and all literary substance with s…

Hi everyone, I just want to know your opinions on this. LINK DELETED Thank you.

I have been to just about every forum there is. What I most often run across is stupidity. Why? Mainly because what I consider to be the fundamental human right of freedom of speech isn't allowed. I see that getting into the finer points of science is what this forum is all about. But without freedom of speech, you are all just well trained slaves. Trained seals flapping your flippers together for treats. Most likely, this doesn't bother you. You may feel that your education is a bigger fish to fry. And from what I have seen, most people want to be led. They prefer fantasy to reality. Nobody really cares what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. Pe…

Lee Harvey Oswald. Hayley Atwell. John Carpenter. Cleopatra. Masters and Johnson. Any internet user. Any mammal. Any species. Is any living being's thoughts the reason of existence?

Philosophy can be generalized with accord to three very powerful and expansive questions: 1. What is the Meaning of Life? 2. Does God Exist (and How)? 3. What is the Nature of Reality? So with regard to this topic, let's begin with the first. I want to know what this forum's Users think about these questions. Once the first question is sufficiently resolved, if it ever could be, then you are welcome to move onto the next over the course of discussion or debate. What is the Meaning of Life then?

There is, in my estimation a 100% chance that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I may die, it might be cloudy, there could be nuclear winter, a meteor bound to split the Earth could be on its way, but the only thing that could stop the Earth from turning away from the Sun tonight, and toward the Sun again tomorrow is some Cosmic burst that would be so powerful and violent as to blow the Earth or Sun to bits, in which case we would not be around to notice I was wrong, as the definition of tomorrow would be moot. and the burst would have arrived at the speed of light, with no warning and brought the turning of Earth, or the integrity of the Earth immediately to a halt. So no …

I am a firm believer of science but this article has really shaken my philosophical belief in Life, nature, outside world and everything. Worth a read.I don't really believe in afterlife but this is shaking my belief.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-isn-t-the-endYour thoughts?