General Philosophy

“Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It [aims to] function as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.” [Wikipedia, May, 2019] I am an electrical engineer with a PhD in semiconductor physics, who has been working in the industry for 25 years. Publications in my field of work are typically subject to a single-blind peer r…

Der Algorithmus zum Lösen der Überbevölkerung The Human race is growing at an alarming rate. In order to save the planet and it's inhabitants from the virus called humanity, we must take action. In my 37 years of research on being a human, I have come to many conclusions about this necessary step, which I would like to lay out here. I hope I can explain all of these very complex ideas in a way, that you can understand them at least to a fraction of the level that I do. First of all, you need to understand that the overpopulation of the human race is caused by many complex chemical reactions in the human body. The main reason causing this problem i…

We always has been inert matter chemically reorganized, only inert elements at the end of all. The existence of the consciousness of the inert matters is a mistery for me.

I'm listening to a podcast and a guy on the podcast says "positivism has been refuted, in so far as any philosophy can be refuted, and it's the analytic philosophers who did it." I'm pretty ignorant on history of philosophy, can someone explain what he is talking about? What is the refutation of positivism and came up with it?

Of course, here I must chime in... The definition of free will you use here implies that 'consciousness' must have the lead, if it is supposed to be genuine free will. But that is a definition that stems from (bad...) Christian theology. Most modern concepts of free will got rid of this inheritance, but obviously neurologists still haven't noticed. 'Free will' means that somebody recognises that he can act according his own reasons, and is not forced to go against them by somebody else. But 'according to' does not mean 'caused by'. You are (unconsciously?) using following argumentative strategy: Use a single, and outdated, heavily metaphysically loaden con…

So, I just finished reading Biocentrism and I have a few questions. 1. If this theory is correct, how does it explain for unexpected interactions from other consciousnesses (example: someone steals money from me, someone murder's my wife, I look for the tv remote but my kid hid it, etc)? If I'm manifesting the entire external world, do I not manifest the other consciousnesses, too? So, in that sense, am I not the only actual consciousness in my existence (from my perspective) and, thus, God? 2. If the external world exists only within my consciousness, why can I not alter that external world with my mind? Why am I bound by the natural laws? If it is all created …

Prove to me that I exist. What can be said to make one believe that anything exists at all? Is there any solid proof that this is real?

I'm just wondering, what this planet would look like if there's no human living on it. As I imagine it - there will be no pollution, no over population and no more endangered animals and among other things. I believe that humans are not part of nature, in a sense that although biologically, our body comply with the laws of nature, we try to fit nature to our needs. If we believe in what we learned from school, that human originally came from a primate like a monkey or ape, how come for many centuries now, we not even heard of any changes regarding offspring of monkey or ape in a city zoo to adapt its environment and evolved? I think, human originally came from some k…

I’m pretty tired of the general consensus within the scientific community that ultra-advanced alien tech would look like magic to us and would be incomprehensible in the same way a caveman would look at a smartphone. I disagree because as we have evolved in time and space, our imagination has evolved too, at an even higher rate actually. A caveman would have likely been unable to imagine anything beyond his current situation, not knowing what to make of the moon, sun, stars, or even think about future societies.We on the other hand have been able for decades to entertain notions that practically speaking still escape us, like faster than light travel for example. W…

Hi Everyone I have a poll for you. It is inspired by Albert Einstein's concept of a "Spacetime Block". Kind regards Tim

Can the basic logic of the universe computers work on produce an Irrational number? Or is the idea that produces the irrational number itself irrational like a belief? Is a circle real in the universe? Did the Universe produce a perfect circle? Can ONE plank rotate? Smallest distance not divided by itself; a BIT or Quark of quantum fluctuation? Just one by itself?. Where would it got if going forward one distance? Can movememt reverse or just change direction? Location needs Triangulation. 3 distance ∆ to return in the 1st repeatable pattern 3/1 or 180°/3 or 60° in one Constant C - 3 - circuit = location = resistance= distance= m…

How do you feel about being dead forever?

There are at leat a couple of current threads where a muddle in the question of equivalence is causing difficulty. I have posted this example for discussion to show that purely mathematical equivalence can be too restrictive.

Irrationality and logical paradox it also explain why we only have three traditional philosophies. human thinking has rationality and two types of Irrationality 1: Rational thinking and the self of rational thinking If and only if we know the definition of self in human thinking, can we know the structure of human thinking. I will start by discussing the basis of rational thinking-formal logic and use logical paradox as testing. There are three basic laws of formal logic. 1: The law of identity 2: The law of non-contradiction 3: The law of excluded middle Th…

Why is there discrimination between the many worlds quantum interpretation and the simulation "hypothesis"? They are both conjectures, but it seems more valid to think, that there are many similar realities, than to think reality is simulated. Is it because one of them multiplies existentialism, while the other one diminishes it? And if so, it it not cowardice to discriminate between them? Just because we dislike one answer, does not make it less valid. But still people smile or chuckle at one, and not the other. Note: Yes I know these are the fringe interpretations, but they are also the most interesting and thorough. But this is a philosophi…

Please do my survey: https://goo.gl/forms/tZDiE6H4OglYOy7C3 Thanks.

This thread is inspired by confusion in another thread which may be due to a Wikipedia article, I consder misleading and muddled, about the observer effect, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116760-observer-effect-and-uncertainty-principle-are-the-same/ although I would say it has relevence to several other current threads as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) Now I think it is good to separate out errors of measurement due to the conditions of observation from the errrors that are inherent in the nature of that which is being observed. But I also think that Wikipedia is wrong to suggest that th…

According to modern physics electromagnetic spectrum is infinite. There is no limit to energies photons can have and therefore no limit to frequencies EM waves can have. Does at mean that in theory humans can see an infinite number of completely different colors? And if yes, what kind of brain do we need to have to have ability to see an infinite numbers of colors? Especially, if we assume that people may hallucinate and imagine this colors without actually using their eyes?

What are your pessimistic thoughts about life?

It seems... The understanding of the universe is in the hands of the Mathematicians, not with Scientists. All that we observes are mere 'illusions' as we are being misconceived by the far and the near, the small and the big. the fast and the slow, the flats and the rounds. The ultimate goal is to find a a set of equations to explain the discrepancies and a math that will give the equivalence to unify them. We will achieve it if we become as smart as the one, God or not, who designed it.

I noticed an interesting topic here : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/15375-how-do-catalysts-work/ There was a guy RBS who had some funny ideas about explaining how catalysts work, which I didn't follow or investigate where they lead, I believe to India, according to names he mentioned, but nevertheless, there were some ridiculous reactions to his writing, such as by mooeypoo and mississippichem. Regardless of how substantiated was anything that RBS wrote, claiming that there is anything "anthropomorphic" about "knowledge" is just a plain and utter BS. I hope I don't have to prove to anyone here that anything living can possess knowledge, but if I have to, I can…

Do you think there is glory in war and blood shed and violence in general, or do you think it is portrayed grandiosely by film and television. People dying and suffering, people killing and hurting, what is the value of it all?

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.

Is it usually just a bad style, redundant, instead of concise and precise, or is it usually a sign that a content is also lacking quality? I can give you one example (that I think it's an example, you may not agree with me), for which I think it is just a bad style. The syntagm "Natural Selection" in Darwin's theory is redundant in a sense that the word "Natural" could/should be omitted, as there is no alternative to nature when we talk about reality, ie not imaginary processes but real processes. As a naturalist, I reject existence of supernatural processes that may influence natural processes, and as an evolutionist I reject existence of artificial processes, that a…

This thread was prompted by the surprise expressed in some quarters that Newton’s laws of Motion (N1 to N3) was not only not a circular argument but could be recast in an alternative manner with beneficial results. The originating thread can be found here:_ In Mathematics we have axioms and we deduce relationships resulting from these axioms in mathematical systems, which obey or follow these axioms. Note this does not disallow the possibility of mathematical systems that do not follow a givens set of axioms, as well as systems to which any particular set of axioms has no relevance. In Physics we have Principles, rather than axioms, and we deduce eff…