General Philosophy

You may have heard the argument that theists often make about the necessity of an intelligent designer for the existence of life. The argument goes as: "It's impossible for something too complex like life to have occurred at random without an intelligent designer." Arguments like this or variations of the same that often leave us feeling unsatisfied or inept to provide concrete answers with proper reasoning. Below I have devised or attempted to make a sequence of logical arguments based on pre-established knowledge and successful theories in science to tackle this common theistic argument of the impossibility or pure coincidence of life and that its existen…

Hi I've betrayed someone 15 years ago. For a long time, i didn't think about it. Now i've stopped drugs, it came back, and it kinda burns me everyday. I have the possibility to send a message to the person, to apologize. But wouldn't that be too late? Wouldn't that be egoist? Like just to feel better? Or maybe I don't know what a proper apology is? Should I just keep living with it? Maybe it's the price to pay. But, I was thinking, if apologizing would be positive for both sides, then I would do it, but I'm not sure I would make things worst, bring back and old memory, provoke anger... should I just take the risk...

Hi everyone, I’m new here — my name’s Zane. I’ve been quietly reading posts for a while and finally decided to join and share something that’s been occupying my thoughts. I’ve recently been diving into some books that blend psychology, influence, and emotional dynamics, and one in particular really stood out to me: The Forbidden Laws of Human Influence by Elias Varnor. It’s not a clinical psychology book per se, but it taps into many psychological principles especially around emotional manipulation, identity, and internal survival behaviors. One passage especially hit hard and I wanted to start a discussion around it: This idea challenges a lot of what we normalize in re…

Hello everyone! I want to share and discuss a new idea I’ve been working on — the Temporal Congestion Paradox. This paradox differs from classic ones because it doesn’t focus on individual time travelers but on the mass convergence of many travelers to the same key moment — the first activation of a time machine (t₀). Main idea: If a time machine is invented within a single, self-consistent universe, it will attract enormous interest in the future. Many future travelers will want to return exactly to the moment of its creation (t₀) to observe or influence this event. This would cause an accumulation of countless “travelers” at the same spacetime point, creating a tem…

Hi i understand that no matter if we want: a ton of money to buy cool cars make the world a cleaner place help animals We do this because achieving it would make us happy Is the brain searching for happiness the main the motivation of a living being?* No matter the species? If yes, knowing that, doesn't it mean you know that all your life you will basically just try one thing: be happy? Isn't it depressing/boring? i'm never bored, but thinking about this, i think it is I like to hack stuff, I'm wondering if there was a way to replace the goal of happiness by something else, what could it be, what could be the result... And anyway why the brain wants that? Does it serve s…

First I want to say that I do critical understanding. What is right is kept, what is wrong is thrown out, and there is no getting along of contradictory points of view. Creationism in the way I explain it here, is the structure of creationist theory, without specifics of the variables of who created what when. Just as like there is gravity theory on the one hand, and there is the application of gravity to a variable like the planet Mercury, on the other hand. The structure of creationist theory: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Basically what that means is that what is subjective creates what i…

I have been thinking about how words and phrases condense vast amount of information into small size and easy to utilize it. This feels like how eigen vectors condense large dataset and carry the essence of the data with them. Is this something that anyone feel interesting enough to research?

First of all, I just want to say this is not true—just a theory. At all costs, this is simply a way I think. It’s not based on truth, but maybe it could be. So, I was trying to figure out why we exist. Long story short, I got burnt out on that topic. Let’s talk about something different today—and it's about people when they sleep. I have this thought: when people sleep, they teleport out of their "container." A container, in this idea, could be something like an MP4 file—just a shell, and inside is the real content. So what ends up happening when we sleep is that the actual spirit or being gets teleported to another planet or zone. And while they’re there, it makes me thi…

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

If a public forum were created to discuss complex and controversial topics—such as whether Trump's tariffs are good or bad for the USA—and participation was restricted to experts with PhD-level qualifications in economics or political studies, would the discussion eventually converge on a reasonably high level of certainty regarding the issue?

I know this is frowned on, but I urge you listen to this. But if not, the fundamental arguments are as follows: Will Self, suggested that dog's are better bc dogs and humans have developed a true symbiosis, to an almost telepathic level. John Gray, suggested that cat's are better bc they aren't symbiotically attached, but choose to be with us, on the condition that we feed and house them, to their satisfaction. I'll be happy to try and explain the nuances of their relative position's, but they do it more eloquently than I can.

Everything is made up? Without our minds and the things we create with it, the universe and everything in it wouldn't exist? What's your opinion?

Book Review: Instancology by Wade Dong Introduction Wade Dong’s Instancology marks an ontological Copernican Revolution, akin to Kant’s epistemological shift but on a grander scale. Whereas Kant redefined knowledge by arguing that the mind structures experience, Dong redefines ontology itself—shifting from the analysis of parts (substance, attributes, phenomena) to the study of instances. This revolution is built on three major philosophical shifts: 1. From “Parts” to the Whole (Instance) – Philosophers traditionally analyzed reality through components, but Dong asserts that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, requiring a s…

Abstract: This document is written in order to provide proof regarding what is happening in reality compared to what we human beings imagine that is happening, as well as why this is something that is important to know. We start our discussion by noting the difference between something that is dead and a human being that is alive, conscious, and healthy. When something is dead, it has no freedom to act, and behaves again and again according to the laws of the universe. This is something that has been observed since the beginning of human beings for the dead. For example when you throw a ball on earth it is subjected to the laws of gravity as well as air resistance, acco…

You may know people who abhor the topic of philosophy, or regard philosophy as impractical. Whether or not you agree with this writer's particular philosophy, I think you might be hard pressed to find a more succinct expression of these premises: Philosophy deals with practical, 'real world' issues Everyone uses philosophy every day, whether they realize it or not The essay is entitled "Philosophy: Who Needs It". As of this posting, a Google search under "pdf philosophy who needs it" will lead you to it directly.

This seems to be an axiom (self evident truth) of philosophy and in all areas of knowledge. What reasons are there for accepting or rejecting this first principle?

This is what Sabine Hossenfelder, a respected physicist within the scientific community, has to say in her video on YouTube: 🔗 https://youtu.be/shFUDPqVmTg?si=not59XTuPYqUDwmu "Published in 'Foundations of Physics' is nonsense and remains nonsense." Sabine Hossenfelder: "This email came from someone I have met a few times but do not know well, who was working at a top institute in the United States at the time. To respect confidentiality, I have removed some details. *'Hi Sabina, I don’t know if you remember me. I am not using my work email because this topic is sensitive, and I hope our conversation remains confidential. I am reaching out about y…

Hello Everybody, I need your help in a project which I am trying to do on the web. Part of the project is what I call a Tree of Knowledge. We would like to let our users to get to any subject of general knowledge by dividing global knowledge into sections. It is easier to explain in example. If we have a starting subject as Math, then we can make sub-subjects like Algebra, Arithmetic, Geometry, Statistics etc. At the same time sub-subject Geometry can be in its turn to be divided to lower level sub-subjects like Axioms, Definitions, Nonlinear Geometry etc. To make the tree manageable we decided to limit to 8 number of children each parent subject my have. Now t…

Scientific progress is often seen as a linear path toward truth. Each discovery builds on the last, bringing us closer to a complete understanding of the universe. But is that really the case? Philosophers of science, from Thomas Kuhn to Karl Popper, have debated whether science moves forward objectively or if it's shaped by shifting paradigms. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions don’t just add knowledge but replace entire worldviews. Popper, on the other hand, believed that falsifiability—the ability to prove theories wrong—drives true progress. But what if science isn’t leading to ultimate truth at all? Some argue that our theories are only approximations,…

Studying some Pythagorean arithmetic which involves number theory and it is sort of philosophical. Mathematical Philosophy? https://g.co/gemini/share/89831d1e48d6 This is what I have done so far.

The Prime Minister ! Do not feel Bad that you are Not a Prime Minister ! You are indeed more than a Prime Minister of your Closest Nation ! The name of the Nation is your Own Name consisting of so many Living Cells and Organs and Systems that make Yourself ! You are the Custodian, Care Taker, The Boss, the CMD , the CJI ,the President and everything and Everyone in Position for this Body ! Of Course you also need to be the House Keeper, Cleaner, Errand Runner and Duty Staff for this Nation ! You need to Listen to and Act/Decide over the Demands and Cries of each System and Organ that Comprises you ! Highly Complicate…

Hi, During the development of humanity, speech communication arose at some point. Many scientific researchers conclude whether or not a certain humanoid group have been able to communicate with each other through speech on the basis of research into the development of the larynx and the vocal cords. But in my opinion (human) beings can also communicate with each other through whispering. While whispering, people can just talk to each other. The presence or composition of a larynx or vocal cords does not play any role in this. How does science stand in this ???

What If You Shape the Universe? Have you ever wondered if the universe is watching us—or if we’re actually shaping it just by being here?

Hello my name is Miguel Vega I want to start this by saying if anyone knows of any literature or further evidence of this theory being asked before please let me know it's been something I've thought of for a long time let the record show I also don't fancy myself a Genius or anything of that nature, but I've always wondered that if you were to forget something doesn't it almost seem (objectively of course to the person who's forgot) that the experience didn't happen at all of course I know that sounds dumb but hear me out, if let's say hypothetically you were to get blackout drunk and not remember any second of the time you had while intoxicated (which I've heard of happ…

I came to the incredible conclusion that we might all be the same person. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I promise you that conclusion is based in logic. 1 The apartments thought experiment. I am going to start with this thought experiment since it best visualizes the overall theory. It does not ‘proof’ the theory in any immediate way. However in the short chapters that follow, I will try to show that there might be no difference between this thought experiment, and how conscious life in universe works. The apartments thought experiment We have a drug which is capable to regulate to which part of the brain a person can read/write memory. …