General Philosophy

This was originally going to be a response to another thread, but it would have taken it sufficiently off topic (and now the thread is closed). As I went on writing, it got really long, so I'm just turning it into a very short introduction of science. Now, Popper was on the right track, but he was off by quite a bit. Popper's naïve falsification is essentially just a modus tollens. T⊃O ~O ∴~T If the theory is true, we have a predicted observation (within a certain amount of uncertainty). When we measure something outside of that range for that predicted observation, we need to throw out the theory wholesale. Think about that. Anytime we have a falsi…

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true? To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that concei…

I'm sure there are some members here with their favorite philosophical writings. Let's make a sort of reading list, shall we? So, what kinds of philosophical books do you like?

In the past, I came up with a type of philosophy called "Systems Interaction Hypothesis." It states that a given object is a "thing" or system or concept which can interact with other systems. Each interaction is known as an "event." Each event is considered a connection or point of a holistic relationship between systems. Systems are the same as the general definition of a system, which is "a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network." A class or a categorization would be considered a system. Using this philosophy/framework, you would define concepts and objects as systems and their interactions as events. You coul…

I would like to try again to explain my opinion regarding the way to reach freedom First some facts and opinions and info mixed: If you are religious, you obey to rules others made, not to your feelings/thoughts, you can't prove a god exists and created us and wants you to apply the rules of your religion. Human creates enjoyable tools and art. Humans can help each others for entertainment, like to discover new planets, which is not vital. Humans can help each others for vitality like emergency physicians, who imo are heroes. Living in society can be satisfying, having friends, love, is great. If you have a job you like, you have a secure situation, earn a lot of money, …

Death is the final step of our lives We don't kill ourselves for 3 reasons: Responsibility: Not to abandon your family who needs you Fear: bypassing self-preservation is so scary Joy: we prefer to give dopamine to our brain than becoming unconscious (and yes religious people could say suicide = hell... (they know what we don't know)) If one ditches the 3 points mentioned above to kill himself, you might say he acted as a coward, because of point No.1 I guess we can all agree you need to have either big balls, either big hopelessness to ditch No.2, so it's not cowardice Regarding the last point, refusing giving dopamine to the brain, is not cowardice neither, imo, don't…

Hellooo Regularly I wonder if maybe the reality, the life i live, all i see, is generated by my mind like in a dream -> i feel, see, communicate, but it's all in my head is there a theory for that ? ps: sorry i know wondering about this can be quite offending because i bring the idea that maybe you are not real (lol...) an idea i have about this is that maybe somewhere else, in the real world, i enter this reaility (which would not be real in the end) and i don't know it's not really real, on purpose, you intentionally forget Maybe you forget because the real reality is horrible, maybe you are alone in there, and this reality is a way to escape and maybe each time …

Philosophy deals with the notion of cause and effect, both identifiable with the latter following the former. What I have never seen so would like to ask is How does Philosophy address feedback and feedforward processes in relation to cause and effect ?

Dear colleagues, I would like to initiate a conversation at the crossroads of two seemingly distant fields: philosophy and design. While philosophy traditionally concerns itself with abstract questions of knowledge, existence, and values, design operates in the realm of concrete problem‑solving and artifact creation. Yet, I argue that their convergence reveals profound insights about human cognition and the nature of practical reasoning. Core Question: How does the designer’s mode of thinking—iterative, prototypical, and context‑sensitive—challenge or complement classical philosophical epistemologies (e.g., rationalism, empiricism)? Key Points for Discussion Design thin…

I came across this, being from the point of view of physics, I thought some here might find it interesting. Also, I like Sean Carroll's style... when I can understand the level he's on. Abstract: We consider emergence from the perspective of dynamics: states of a system evolving with time. We focus on the role of a decomposition of wholes into parts, and attempt to characterize relationships between levels without reference to whether higher-level properties are "novel" or "unexpected." We offer a classification of different varieties of emergence, with and without new ontological elements at higher levels. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15468

The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their …

I've been working on this a long time. I'm satisfied it's incontrovertible, but I'm testing it -- thus the reason for this post. Based on actual usage of the word and the function of the concept in real-world situations -- from individual thought to personal relationships all the way up to the largest, most powerful institutions in the world -- this syllogism seems to hold true. I'd love you to attack it. Premises: [1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical. [2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks. [3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence. [4] Insi…

According to Plato, our observable world is just an imperfect reflection of the Realm of Ideas which is, well, perfect (this is likely where the meaning of "ideal" comes from). The Realm of Ideas is where the perfect forms of various things exist, including beauty and justice but also dogs, cats, tapeworms or asteroids - since Plato argued that the real world is constantly changing and therefore it isn't a reliable source of knowledge. True knowledge, according to Plato, can only be deduced by pure thought (math and logic, not observation) So, what would the Form of Horse Dung be like? This is a half serious thread obviously.

There was a definite beginning to all existence. If no storm started today, there would be no storm at all.

You walk down the road and mistake a flash in a dark corner as a knife and walk into the road to be run over by a car. Or you see the flash and do not mistake it for a knife and carry on walking. Are those 2 classes of thought ("wrong" and ""corrrct") or is that just a post factum categorization ? Is there any way ,even in theory by examining the physical structure of the brain and body that it could be possible to gauge whether or not the physicality of a thought lies in either category? Or is this just a question that can be asked but never answered other than to examine the consequences that flowed ? (and even then different observers will have different interpretation…

Recently, I have been reading David Lindley’s The Dream Universe. A lot of thoughts went through my mind, during reading, and I tried to put them ‘on paper’. Any reaction is welcome! I am sometime astonished how the anthropic principle is used in modern physics. I think it is used upside-down. I find it funny how it only came up in the context of fine tuning, or as explanation of why the universe is as it is. Science aims to understand the world as it is: therefore, from the beginning, it is clear that it can only find a universe in which we find the conditions that makes our existence possible. So independent of how deep our understanding of the world around us is, we ar…

below text is a part of my bigger work Philosophical research: Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind. The sun next to the Earth in this model has some significance. This model corresponds to materialism and realism with the addition of idealism. And in the heliocentric model, mind has a significant advantage over matter. A big advantage, because the Earth plays a certain, albeit small, role in this model. The Bishop G.Berkeley system, which was a Copernican revolution in philosophy is not fully compatible with the heliocentric model because it does not take into account the Earth orb…

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1. It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

Hello. I came from another account, but I forgot my username and password, and I changed to another Gmail since. I want to say that this is philosophy, so I put it in philosophy. Anyways, I have a distinguished opinion on the state of awareness (I will say awareness instead of consciousness because I type so fast that I mess up words and this is one of those words that is really easy to mess up). Awareness is a man-made construct. My thought is that the human brain is a machine, just like a steam engine or computer, except it is really complex. We don't know everything about it, but what we do know is that it is a physical object that follows physical properties. Now…

The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers. “A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a singular, all- encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe, finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics". - Theory of Everything, Wikipedia Dating back to ancient times, when the Greeks sought the Arche - the fundamental principle underlying existence - the pursuit of a single unifying theory to ex…

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…

He thinks there's a better option than the slave morality as described in most religion's. Now that we've killed god, the greatest thinkers can seek for a better way to replace a morality that gives agency to everyone that wants it, in spite of the context of one's situation. The ubermench has already spoken.

Imagine a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil and, weeks later, a tornado tearing through Texas. It sounds poetic, even mystical—but in the 1960s, mathematicians and meteorologists revealed that this was more than metaphor. It was mathematics. This phenomenon, famously called the Butterfly Effect, illustrates how tiny changes in a system’s initial conditions can cascade into massive, unpredictable consequences. The Origins of the Butterfly EffectThe Butterfly Effect emerged from the study of nonlinear dynamical systems, which are systems whose output isn’t proportional to their input. In 1961, meteorologist Edward Lorenz was running weather simulations on an early comp…

Look, I've come here for a serious conversation. I believe I can further our knowledge of the universe. But you have to actually exercise your brilliant intelligence. If we are to keep it simple and just think about the origin of the laws of the universe, it would be obvious to you that they must originate in spacetime; that's the only possible location they could be.

I´m curious if i will notice a breakthrough in science something that changes the lives of everybody. I dont know if i should expect something in the first place it feels like developments are focused on capitalim. More pixels in the newest Monitor is not Progress its just one more argument in advertising. I believe that we have more People that work in research but are these people following there own projekts or do they have higher ups that decide for them. The higher ups are probly focused on Money and not actual Progres or maybe they are because i dont really know. I appreciate any form of explanation thx