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?

After all the bumps and breaks my weathered hide absorbed during this journey, reaching the far side of 83 comes as a welcome surprise. I once thought people this age were supposed to go someplace and expire, but here I am, still walking straight up, about as physically able as ever, still cogitating with passable mental functionings and now gunning my new metallic-Bordeaux Maserati down long stretches of highway. I plan to use my post-80 years as what, to my mind, they are. Bonuses. After 80 we play with house money, age-wise. Even so I no longer buy any green bananas, since ancients like myself have to consider the reality of their mortality about now. Karmic …

I argue that everyone 'should' respect the planet, and thus everyone has a compound respect or faith; one respects his mother because she gave birth to one, and one is brought up by her bosom, at her side. Whether or not you accept this fact, the Earth played a crucial role in your birth; and you grew up by it's side, or at least of it's material. Without editing the universe, Earth is vital to our existence; it's the pursuit of knowledge for self or selves-empowerment that draws us further away, seemingly ability-wise, from the planet, but this is just in thought, it's barely put in practice. Sure we can visit mars but we can expect hundreds of years until we create colo…

In this thread I will briefly describe how the heart effects, inter alia, thought and emotion. As the Egyptians transcribed 'the heart is the seat of all emotion, and with my modern day experience added, I can safely say that it is also the subconscious, and thus, the source of man's thought. When we think of a subject, it's by way of a prompt from the heart (~in the form of a "!") to the mind ("?"), whether this be by natural instinct or through the subliminal; nature or nurture. A thought-prompt is a signal sent by the heart, and it's not originally worded-- it takes mental power to word 'a real cat' for example. All hearts are connected, by way of them being hearts, ca…

paradox of the 'theory of everything' suppose i have created a 'theory of everything' by its definition this 'theory of everything' includes an algorithm for a legitimate descriptive language of models which is the basis for creating these theory in the scientific community as a result my 'theory of everything' would not be considered legitimate in the scientific community even if it were 100% correct

Was everything made by something else for its maker's purposes? Was everything not made by something else for its maker's purposes? I don't know if the former is true, but I do know the latter is false. I also know that everything either was or wasn't made by something else for its particular maker's purposes. Let me restate that more clearly. every (individual) thing either was or wasn't made by something else for its particular maker's purposes. A baby tiger was made by its mother for its mother's purpose. A hammer was made by a human for that human's purpose. Indeed, each of those things were made by something else for their particular makers' pur…

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser1.pdf Thought you guys would be interested. I even stopped lurking just to post this. I debated about where to put it for awhile—psychology? But I felt that it would be more relevant here, for the type of discussion involved. \\edit The .pdf is a rigorous summary of how we define intelligence, and how we measure it. Also, how we may be wrong, and where our boundaries are.

What do you guys think, where do people get that idea that linguistics is not a real science from? I got into that annoying discussion twice on two different Internet forums by now. http://linguistforum.com/outside-of-the-box/croatian-toponyms/msg27816/#msg27816 https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4518&start=50 (My nickname there is Teo123.) So, what do you think, where does that idea come from, and how to fight it? I don't know how about you, but that idea sounds insane to me.

If two people imagined- (i) the same dream-(some named function) as each other and also at the same time, was it real? Was human interaction made? (i * i) = i^2 = -1, a real number.

The culture of defending a "status quo" is fairly well-known and also may be called "reactionism," "realism," and/or, "conservatism" depending on the context in which these terms are used. What has occurred to me that I find interesting is that such a culture of "status quo" may actually emerge subsequently to a culture of change rather than preceding it, as might be logically expected. After all, new technologies, lifestyles, and everyday social-economic practices evolve independently, without necessarily getting incorporated into an overall worldview. However, once evolving forms become spotlighted as "change," it becomes possible to react against or control such "ch…

as we approach the BB mathematics appears to become unreliable at predicting. I have perceived this as suggesting math somehow breaks down at those scales. I could see it as not a failure, but looking backwards toward math's assembly at the outstart of transitional expression of : from logic to logics to math, to maths, the universe being the amplification of the final four close developmental elements...with This as... the( eventual and continuing)output... I also could see that the classical world evolved out of the quantum one, as an example of the actively evolving universe at work, and both states exist as adjacent steps that express the universe in it's current ad…

This sentence (see the title) has appeared several times recently in this forum. Could somebody please explain to me what it means? I honestly don't understand.

Today I found out that reality is analog because it is simple and easy.

Would the world be better off with only 1 time on the clock and we could all then just adjust to the circumstances ?

hello ive always wondered if, 50,000 years ago, 1000 earths were put in the universe, and humans ( just as they were cavemen) were put on all the 1000 earths at the same time would all those hunans end up in the same place…ie invented fire, internet, space flight, cars etcetc

in this idea, the physiologic structure of the human brain has 3 components, Reptilian, Mammalian and Human. Prior to the development of the human, the mammalian/reptilian co-processors were in charge. Prior to that, just the reptilian. This heirarchy of control has a built-in conflicts caused by jealousies between domains of who has active control of the human organism, of these 3 structures. This internal psychological competition is amplified by a physiologic need for each domain having to share a common nutrient supply. When we were 2 brained mammals, the brain/body size was smaller, allowing the body an easier job to supply the brain. There seems other interesting pr…

I showed a few of these in my Philosophy of Mind class today. Some of them are pretty amazing (and more or less accurate). Fair warning, they contain profanity.

These are the questions that could not be easily answered.But for the sake of awareness for everybody here, I want to share these questions to you specially to those who already accept the multiverse theory. The questions points on the multiverse source of energy to create multiple universes.My questions are: 1. Is the source of energy infinite?Why the source of energy is infinite? 2. Where did this source of energy came from?Did it have a beginning? 3.Is space outside this observable universe (if there is really an outside) infinite? These are my inquiries.Response are greatly appreciated.Thank you....

This is a spin-off from a parallel discussion here, in the context of different explanations of SR. The compatibility of 3D Space with SR was put in doubt (if I correctly understood it!) based on the argument that 3D space implies presentism, and presentism is incompatible with SR. I suspect that there's an error somewhere in that logical scheme. Mordred wrote: I could not follow that argument, regretfully... But before getting into details: it was next suggested that usually "presentism" implies a classical Newtonian concept of time. If that is correct, then it doesn't apply to Lorentzian 3D Space. Then, does your argument still stand, do you think? …

I now have inner peace. "Bullshit" I hear you cry that's just mystical mumbo jumbo. So you're a Buddhist now? Nope. Buddhism is only relevant if you're from the culture it was intended to teach. No I'm just a bloke who has had his knowledge, of the world and how it relates him, switch flick to understanding. I had four similar switches to flick for this to happen; 1. The illusion of control. Ironically Kung fu panda helped me flick this switch cheers Buddha 2. The illusion of understanding. This forum's responsible for me flicking this switch big up thanks guys. 3. Living in the moment. Again Kung fu panda, partly, and "inow" in question…

What would one expect to see if they were inside of a 3D object that was slowly turning into a 4D object? This is a little broad I am aware. But to be honest I wasn't really sure where to start on this one. The reason I want to put this out there is that the more I grasp some of the theoretical side of science and the maths, I'm starting to see a trend to the possible max speed of causality and the number of dimensions. This brought me to what if Dark energy is an energy that slow's Causality by increasing the dimension count. Please let me know how wrong I am but remember the original point of the thread.

4th Axiom Geometric Reasoning I published a book about it. It is on Amazon.com You should swing up a copy, don't you know how important logic is!? 3 Axioms have existed since ancient times. This is a 4th axiom This is new logic. JOIN THE REVOLUTION!! I have been working on new logic ideas since 2016 & finally published my first book about my idea of 4th axiom geometric reasoning! Part 1: Triangularization 1.) Differential is consummate and has efficiency. 2.) A unit is a nexus. 3.) Congruency adds value. 4.) Contraption brings exchange. 5.) Differential has efficiency and congruency yields a unit. 6.) Units and differential can exist inte…

If we are executing a programm... Is it possible another Big Bang after a Big Crunch? And another Universe, similar, identical or completely different? Consequence of the present Universe. In an infitine process. Another universe where doesn't apear the Earth. Or our galaxy. Or current galaxies. Or Another Universe like the present, with only difference in an atom at the other side of the Universe. Another Universe where we have not the same brothers, or in the lottery of DNA we have not a disease and we have another... Another where doesn't happen the same things and we do not appear... And repeating the loop of possibilities almost infitinites in an infinite pr…