16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

BTW How sure are you that I gave you a neg and why do you believe it was out of spite?

Wild stabs in the dark.

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Wild stabs in the dark.

Can we please just discuss the topic, without all these emotional appeals and excuse's to dodge my question's; PLEASE, just answer the (fucking) question's.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Absolute truth does exist, and you even know about it. What is the one thing that you can tell me about the universe that applies to all life, all matter, all forces, everything? You can tell me that there will be change -- whether the change is constant or intermittent, whether it is slow or fast, whether it is immediate or takes billions of years, it will happen, because change is an absolute truth of reality. Another absolute truth is balance, because in all of this change, balance tries to reassert itself over and over.

No it doesn't, it's just part of the process...

Douglas Adam's puddle is a good analogy, that explains why you're wrong...

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Can we please just discuss the topic, without all these emotional appeals and excuse's to dodge my question's; PLEASE, just answer the (fucking) question's.

You were asked about a mention of “ironic” before; I find this to be ironic, given your pattern of not answering requests for clarification when you make a comment. You engage in evasion and sometimes a strategy of “a good offense is the best defense” as it appears you are doing here.

Also the farce of pretending you didn’t downvote posts when you did. They are anonymous up until the point where you engage in a charade like this.

If you can’t post in good faith, don’t post at all.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

You were asked about a mention of “ironic” before; I find this to be ironic, given your pattern of not answering requests for clarification when you make a comment. You engage in evasion and sometimes a strategy of “a good offense is the best defense” as it appears you are doing here.

Also the farce of pretending you didn’t downvote posts when you did. They are anonymous up until the point where you engage in a charade like this.

If you can’t post in good faith, don’t post at all.

I sometimes wonder about biased views, my pattern of behaviour seems to piss off some more than other's; to the point that I wonder if we're reading the same thread.

I didn't pretend I didn't neg him, read it without the blinkers, I just asked question's.

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised), all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's; as I've previously mentioned, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted, so if I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify.

On 7/19/2026 at 9:34 AM, dimreepr said:

That's ironic, for some...

I will note that there was a request to explain this, and you have still not done so.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised), all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's; as I've previously mentioned, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted, so if I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify

Moderator Note

I'll make this official. Don't you think this pattern of drunk posting is unfair to those you're discussing issues with? It's SO frustrating that you think your questions are pertinent when you also admit you failed to reread the parts you're being asked to clarify. I don't want to see any more of these attacks on members who come here in good faith to discuss issues with above average thinkers. Perhaps you need to stop defending your "pattern of behavior" and figure out why you think it's preferable to piss people off with it. You are the only person here who thinks you're reading a different thread. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

I will note that there was a request to explain this, and you have still not done so.

That ship has sailed. It is screamingly obvious that the ellipsis in his comment represented an unspoken accusation of dishonesty on my part. He will not clarify this, as he would be invited to provide examples and fail, betraying the reality of who is genuinely dishonest here.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I sometimes wonder about biased views, my pattern of behaviour seems to piss off some more than other's; to the point that I wonder if we're reading the same thread.

Again, screamingly obvious that those he pisses off are predominantly (though not exclusively) those he accuses of dishonesty (see above), 'emotional appeals' (see above), 'gaslighting' (see above - the neg came from me), 'dodging the question', etc. All unwarranted ad hominem attacks over what are more his stock in trade. This comment itself is a prima facie case of his own regular gaslighting.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't pretend I didn't neg him, read it without the blinkers, I just asked question's.

Are we all really that blinkered? Or is it simply more gaslighting.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised),

I am unable to discern any significant change in behaviour since the 'drunken' defence. I'm inclined now to suspect that that defence itself may have been a dishonest tactic to evade closer scrutiny. May be wrong, but... (ellipsis substituting for 'judge for yourselves')

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's;

Patently untrue. A lot of rhetorical questions and downright offensive statements packed in there too.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted

Patently untrue. Several instances in the last couple of pages alone of him butting into dialogues between others.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify.

... but not to apologies for the systematic pattern of abuse.

In a thread dedicated to the nature of truth and honesty, I find your posts ironic...

Cross posted with @Phi for All

So sorry, perhaps I spoke out of turn here.

On 7/29/2026 at 1:38 AM, sethoflagos said:

You might find the wiipedia page on Abstract & Concrete interesting.

The philosophical concensus is that abstracts such as numbers exist independently of space-time (and its contents) and therefore in a sense go beyond metaphysics: they are thought to be entirely valid in the realities of all possible universes.

Thanks.I did look at your link. It seems an inexhaustible subject -and why I am relieved I never studied philosophy.

Could we equally ask "why do people think these categories of experiences are valid?"

Do these enquiries do any more than scratch an itch?

When I say I am relieved not to have gone down this path,it is not to demean those that do or did but just to acknowledge that my comparative dullness of spirit has unwittingly spared me from a waste of my limited talents (albeit a loss of interesting and demanding conversations)

Is it any different ,I wonder from my lack of athletic ability has spared me from what I perceive as the mainly waste of time involved in following or practicing sport?

That would apply to most activities I suppose.Are we all here "killing time" in some sense and trying to find our own particular expertise where we can try to kill it most satisfyingly?

(Unless ,eg we are in Ukraine where they are just trying to survive -and prevail)

Btw I don't think I went off topic there;I think maybe I wandered off any topic 🙂

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Could we equally ask "why do people think these categories of experiences are valid?"

I did enjoy that post - a lot there to relate to. I think the psychos call it Weltschmerz.

I'm no expert in general philosophy, but I do have an interest in the philosophy of science as I do like to understand the reason why I do stuff the way I do it. For me as a practising engineer, my interactions with other engineers gets a bit of framing:

Naturalism: the 'no miracles' clause. ie prayer is no substitute for employing the best welders.

Realism: pipes and pumps exist independently of our minds, and we perceive them sufficiently similarly to have common grounds for non-random discussion. This establishes a territory for agreement ie a space where we can have a common absolute understanding of truth.

Scientific realism: this is specifically the narrower aspect of realism that I've described above. It is the foundation of the scientific method, and therefore should be an area where all active members of this site might be expected to agree quite closely.

Throughout this thread my posts I think I've defended (my understanding of) scientific realism with a deliberately straight bat. I expected a bit of kick back from those who've previously shown themselves to hold anti-realist views, but it's been interesting to see the variety of alternate views.

At times, it seemed that we were reenacting the Science Wars.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

At times, it seemed that we were reenacting the Science Wars.

Am I glad that I wasted no time reading any of the claptrap referred to in your reference or studying any of the terminology involved.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Am I glad that I wasted no time reading any of the claptrap referred to in your reference or studying any of the terminology involved.

🤔

11 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

🤔

This reference was much more interesting.

On 7/29/2026 at 1:38 AM, sethoflagos said:

You might find the wiipedia page on Abstract & Concrete interesting.

Yet it still suffers from that all too human desire to classify and pigeonhole all things.

As such it misses out on the fact that fiction can affect the real world about us.

(My usual example of this is Harry Potter, though there are examples aplenty available.)

This is partly why I commented that this thread is not about 'Real'.

Another pair of words to be wary of in this context is material v immaterial.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

As such it misses out on the fact that fiction can affect the real world about us.

(My usual example of this is Harry Potter, though there are examples aplenty available.)

How does that fiction differ from simple miscalculations/misdirections?- eg the Persian King Darius(?) and the "You will destroy a great empire" prophesy at Delphi

Edited yesterday at 07:08 PM1 day by geordief

3 hours ago, geordief said:

How does that fiction differ from simple miscalculations/misdirections?- eg the Persian King Darius(?) and the "You will destroy a great empire" prophesy at Delphi

Obviously I was asleep during that history lesson so I had to look it up.

Google has a different version of the story but I get the gist.

The difference between Harry Potter and the Delphi Oracle is that users (not necessarily the prophesiers) believed the prophesies to be' true'.

I can't think anyone believes Harry Potter to be 'true' except within the context of the books.

Prophesies may be lies, deliberate untruths, fiction is generally known and recognised to be 'made up'.
(I know that some call some fiction lies such as "The Man Who Never Was" in WWII a made up character the Allies knew to be untrue that deceived the Germans."

But yes lies, pretence and deceit can also affect the real world around us, as noted.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Obviously I was asleep during that history lesson so I had to look it up.

Google has a different version of the story but I get the gist.

The difference between Harry Potter and the Delphi Oracle is that users (not necessarily the prophesiers) believed the prophesies to be' true'.

I can't think anyone believes Harry Potter to be 'true' except within the context of the books.

Prophesies may be lies, deliberate untruths, fiction is generally known and recognised to be 'made up'.
(I know that some call some fiction lies such as "The Man Who Never Was" in WWII a made up character the Allies knew to be untrue that deceived the Germans."

But yes lies, pretence and deceit can also affect the real world around us, as noted.

Would the relationship between the physical world and the world of ideas bear any relation to the debuncted notion of "action at a distance" that "explained" Newtonian Gravity ? (Is Localism the theory that took its place-and which Bell has again ,apparently upended with his infernal statistical analysis?)

There seems (to me) to be no obvious chain of causality -and certainly nothing reliably predictable between the thought and the consequence but consequences there surely are.

Or might that be just another analogy?

Edit:I see I did mangle that Delphic prophesy story.

Croesus of Lydia it was (more famous than Darius,too now)

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by geordief

20 hours ago, geordief said:

Would the relationship between the physical world and the world of ideas bear any relation to the debuncted notion of "action at a distance" that "explained" Newtonian Gravity ? (Is Localism the theory that took its place-and which Bell has again ,apparently upended with his infernal statistical analysis?)

There seems (to me) to be no obvious chain of causality -and certainly nothing reliably predictable between the thought and the consequence but consequences there surely are.

Or might that be just another analogy?

Edit:I see I did mangle that Delphic prophesy story.

Croesus of Lydia it was (more famous than Darius,too now)

Whilst I was asleep during some ancient history, I was wide awake in English.

Unlike many languages English distinguishes between 'Abstract' and 'Concrete' nouns, again underling its suitability as a language for Science.

Abstract nouns includes your 'world of ideas'.

Both types are regarded as 'real' . You need to add qualifying words of phrases to make finer distinctions, another capability English excels in.

One such might be material v immaterial. Shadows are still very real, but immaterial. A concrete block is obviously real and material.

One test I like is "Can the object affect the real world ?" as separate from abstract v concrete or material v immaterial or true v false.

As regards your scientific question it is necessary to distinguish between action at a distance and instantaneous action at a distance.

Noting first that 'action' has its standard English definition, not the specialist definition used in Mechanics, I would observe that the problem hasn't gone away.

They were aware of it in Newton's time, but they pushed it into the long grass as intractable.

In truth, all we have done with better experiments and measurements is to reduce the scale over which it might be observed, very dramatically.

We too have brushed it under the carpet.