dimreepr

Thank you, for both, not assuming it was anything other than a genuine question and your answer. +1

Just out of interest, how would this knowledge benefit our society?

Even I know that's BS, the tick rate remains the same, it's space that changes to accommodate the fact...

So many clever people explaining how stupid he is, and he is stupid, but we can't dismiss his position on the pole. So we, the people, try to rationalise our various excuses for not killing the prick, the first time round... 😇

It's kind of what Nietzche was trying to say in his, parable of a madman.

It's nuanced from start to finish, it's a brave new world. First we get money and the idea of a fair exchange, then we get the climbers who use both, fear of the future and hope in the future, in order to tip the scales ever so slightly in their favour (your classic casino gambit) and so on and so on... Eventually we get Trumpism, a narcissism so advanced that it doesn't care if the 99% even exists. Now and then we need a savage to say "let's calm down and read a bit of Shakespeare to get some perspective.

Indeed, that's your job...

Hmmm, so how am I wrong?

Yes, it may sound counterintuitive, but most of what the wealthy/powerful elite's do is try to make us fear the consequences of them taking away their money/power. We're supposed to sit in the gutter and await all the riches, that 'will' trickle down. 🙄 If we all stop giving a shit and learn how to survive in the gutter, we take away their superpower, basically the emperors new clothes.

Indeed, like I said at the start of this; "it's a cultural difference not a philosophical one". All of recognised science's start with the premise/philosophy of trying to eliminate cultural/human bias, in order to reveal the truth despite the thinker. @Sohan Lalwani Just gainsaying, is not an argument however long it takes, so please provide a logical reason why I'm wrong.

Indeed, and our best defence is to not give a shit...

The tick remains the same, it's the clock that changed... 😉

Only 'nothing' can live forever, why would you need a god for that? Gaia is the origin god, so in this context, yes you are.

How do you know when someone/thing is suffering?

Point entirely missed, ask me how...

Does that make you a physicist?

This is exactly why we have a seperate judicial system; emotional thought is beset with inaccurate knowledge which does involve pulling the trigger...

No they don't: Is this the 5 minute argument?

I'm no expert, but this looks like an argument for the universe to have an eternal soul.

Different sciences will have different culture's not philosophies, but the point of this post: is that philosophy set the initial parameters of science, and much like all 'children' it grew up thinking it's smarter than it's parent; ethics is essentially a sibling of science and is trying to guide it's brethren.

What does that even mean? I'm talking about the philosophy of science, what are your collective talking about?

There's a reason why a paradox is impossible, you haven't 'really' thought it through properly... 😉

No wonder, only the children of philosophy and science are really on speaking terms, these days... 🤕

Indeed, but I think Neitzche and many other's would argue that science is the gatekeeper, that prevents the necessary leverage that religion offers, and science can't/won't...

Of course it is, you just don't understand why... 🙄 Indeed, coincidentally, it was one of your less verbose post's...