The Sun Also Sets

[commonsense]

[
And none of this reduces knowledge to belief as you suggest in the OP- what it does mean is that induction is contingent on understood conditions. Now clearly 100s of years of study has reduced your "belief" that the sun sets in the west as inadequate. Now we KNOW why the sun appears to act that way, and we also know it is contingent on the motion of the earth as it rotates on its own axis, and on the trajectory and inclination of the earth as it rotates round the sun.
We know that should these things continue then the sun shall appear in the sky and move with regular certainty and we know why. None of this requires belief.

Knowledge is experience, but do you know that your experience accurately describes reality? Do you have reasons to trust your senses or do you believe your senses are reliable? Do you even know that your thoughts are logical?

At its core, knowledge depends on the belief that you can trust your experiences.

[Gary Childress]

But I am interested in hearing your answer.

Supernovas are a dime a dozen but The First Black Dwarf will be unique. Do the physics fit Sol for the first place trophy?

The persecution of Trump is an example of how the law, like the vote, has been corrupted by that which tolerates and defends the corrupt, bribe-taking Brandon.

Trump is The Individual Man against The Machine.

Well, hopefully you won't remain in that state of mind forever. The law has been corrupted many times, not just when your idol Donald Trump gets tried.

[commonsense]

No because that would also be wrong. The sun is not moving with respect to the day at all. And the image is in your head.
And if you pay attention the "sunset" position changes everyday throughout the year, which is really interesting, rarely exactly in the West, and depending on where you are on the earth.

n.b. “appears to”.

No - that is the least important remark I have made.
What only "appears to" is not knoweldge, is the point
I have told you want is known in regards to YOUE thread.
So if you are going to bother to respond to a post, at least have the decency to read it and respond to the main point as it relates to your original Post. Otherwise this is just another empty thread and a waste of everyones time like so many other threads on theis degenerating Forum.
I should not have to remind you of the point you were making in the OP.

Perhaps you need to re-read my post where I suggested a rewording of my OP, the one where I clearly intended to improve my OP.

If you bury your main point amongst other points, expect a reply to any of your points.

Yes, appearances may not be knowledge. Nevertheless you should be able to state that what appears to you is what appears to you.

Clearly, the vernacular is out of touch with physics.

However, the main point of my OP isn’t about the sun.

If you can’t refrain from ad homs, you are one who pollutes this forum.

And I apologize for resorting to ad homs in my own response.

[Sculptor]

[
And none of this reduces knowledge to belief as you suggest in the OP- what it does mean is that induction is contingent on understood conditions. Now clearly 100s of years of study has reduced your "belief" that the sun sets in the west as inadequate. Now we KNOW why the sun appears to act that way, and we also know it is contingent on the motion of the earth as it rotates on its own axis, and on the trajectory and inclination of the earth as it rotates round the sun.
We know that should these things continue then the sun shall appear in the sky and move with regular certainty and we know why. None of this requires belief.

Knowledge is experience, but do you know that your experience accurately describes reality? Do you have reasons to trust your senses or do you believe your senses are reliable? Do you even know that your thoughts are logical?

At its core, knowledge depends on the belief that you can trust your experiences.

No.
Experience is only a small part of knoweldge.
I know things I shall never have a prospect of experiencing and so do you. SO much is obvious, or do I need to give examples?

[commonsense]

[
And none of this reduces knowledge to belief as you suggest in the OP- what it does mean is that induction is contingent on understood conditions. Now clearly 100s of years of study has reduced your "belief" that the sun sets in the west as inadequate. Now we KNOW why the sun appears to act that way, and we also know it is contingent on the motion of the earth as it rotates on its own axis, and on the trajectory and inclination of the earth as it rotates round the sun.
We know that should these things continue then the sun shall appear in the sky and move with regular certainty and we know why. None of this requires belief.

Knowledge is experience, but do you know that your experience accurately describes reality? Do you have reasons to trust your senses or do you believe your senses are reliable? Do you even know that your thoughts are logical?

At its core, knowledge depends on the belief that you can trust your experiences.

No.
Experience is only a small part of knoweldge.
I know things I shall never have a prospect of experiencing and so do you. SO much is obvious, or do I need to give examples?

Do you agree that reading is an experience?

[Sculptor]

Knowledge is experience, but do you know that your experience accurately describes reality? Do you have reasons to trust your senses or do you believe your senses are reliable? Do you even know that your thoughts are logical?

At its core, knowledge depends on the belief that you can trust your experiences.

No.
Experience is only a small part of knoweldge.
I know things I shall never have a prospect of experiencing and so do you. SO much is obvious, or do I need to give examples?

Do you agree that reading is an experience?

Reading is not knowledge

[Age]

But the poster you were replying to never implied you did mention anything about mirrors.

NO, they may well NOT have.

BUT they were SAYING, that 'a mirror' is eternal as can be, but ALL 'the reflections' ARE 'transitory'. WHICH, some might take or infer to mean that what I was SAYING were also NOT ACTUALLY 'eternal' BUT ONLY 'transitory' AS WELL.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, 'they' ARE NOT.

So, I just made it VERY CLEAR that I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'mirrors'. Therefore, what was being SAID and CLAIMED in 'that sentence', which was in DIRECT response to what I SAID, and CLAIMED, REALLY DID have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH what I ACTUALLY SAID, and CLAIMED. Which, by the way, STILL STANDS.

It doesn't even matter anyway.

Okay.

People make claims about things all the time and usually understand perfectly the claims they are making, else they would rarely make them public.

Wow REALLY?

From what I have OBSERVED on this public forum alone I find the EXACT OPPOSITE to be much MORE true.

So it matters not whether they are misinterpreted by others, the point is, if everyone understands what they are saying, then there is nothing that can come between their understanding to undermine that understanding anyway, in other words, to misunderstand what to others is their own unique perfect understanding is futile and pointless, unless there is full agreement with what is being read.

If you SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

Not to confuse what is being read by what is being written. As there are many authors writing their understandings here, but there is only one reader that we can all agree on.

And WHO or WHAT is that 'one reader', which 'we' ALL can supposedly 'agree on', EXACTLY?

[Age]

I WILL WAIT to SEE how 'you' DEFINE the word 'paradox' here, FIRST.

Will this work as a definition of the word paradox?

A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Have you EVER NOTICED that the word 'paradox' is ACTUALLY A 'paradox' of 'itself'?

AS the word 'paradox' can mean BOTH, what you wrote here, AND, 'a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement or proposition, but which on further reflection actually expresses a truth'.

So what 'this' literally means is 'we' can make 'this' WORK, as a definition, in just about ANY way 'we' like.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed and everyone was to live forever, where would the matter eventually come from to create more humans?

WHY did you 'now' bring the 'matter' word into this discussion?

Also, what you keep MISSING here is that what 'you' ASSUME 'you' are, EXACTLY, may NOT ACTUALLY be 'that' AT ALL.

How do you define the word 'you' and/or 'person', EXACTLY?

If every living being (let alone just human beings) in the universe were preserved in some shape or form (say even just preserving all the conversations we have on the Internet over the course of time), it would continually take up more and more matter and energy to preserve more such information as both new beings are created and old beings create more and more information.

WHY would 'you' even PRESUME or ASSUME that 'this' could even happen and occur?

And, WHY are 'you' even bringing 'this idea' into 'our discussion'?

Or if it is only old beings who want to preserve information and stop new beings from arriving, then eventually, it will use up all the matter and energy in the universe to preserve that information. And if we prevent new beings from arriving, who is going to till the soil and grow crops so that the old generation can continue?

'your' very first 'if' here was so FAR OFF TOPIC, I am still wondering WHY 'you' brought 'it' into 'our discussion' here.

And, from 'your' first 'if' here 'you' have just KEPT GETTING FURTHER and FURTHER OFF TOPIC, and thus OFF TRACK.

If the old generation creates a completely automated world that services them (without the need of new arrivals to work), then how long can the old generation preserve its memories and information without using up all the matter in the universe?

'your' very first 'if' had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have SAID, nor CLAIMED, here so that 'if' IS MOOT. Thus, the rest of these 'ideas', following on from 'your' OWN IMAGININGS, have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Or is it not the case that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed?

'Matter', 'space', AND 'energy' are NOT 'created' NOR 'destroyed' in the sense that 'they' BEGAN, nor will CEASE, to exist.

Also, for ALL of 'those of you', who CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN and/or will CEASE to exist, will 'you' EXPLAIN how 'this' could ACTUALLY happen IF 'matter' and/or 'energy' is neither created nor destroyed?

If 'you' will NOT EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION, INCONSISTENCY, and/or CONFLICT here, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

Oh, wait up, HOW can I say, I AM Truly SORRY, for doing what you HATE people doing?

Why are you sorry?

BECAUSE you SAID and CLAIMED that I MISINTERPRETED.

I understand my own philosophical understanding, just as you do with yours.

What do the words and the term 'philosophical understanding' even mean, or is referring to, EXACTLY?

So whether other people do or do not resonate and/or agree with what I personally understand, does not bother me one iota, I simply do not care for sorry's especially prefuse ones.

Okay. But I would NEVER be 'sorry', NOR 'apologize', for ANY such 'thing'.

I was JUST 'apologizing' for what 'you' CLAIMED I MISINTERPRETED. That is; ONLY IF I ACTUALLY DID MISINTERPRET what 'you' CLAIMED I DID. And NOTHING ELSE.

[Age]

I believe the sun will descend in the west tonight. I believe this because that is what has always happened.

The sun has never done that and never shall.
And it does not matter what you believe.

Would you have preferred it if I had said that the image of our sun appears to descend in the western sky, and always has in my lifetime?

Well 'this' would be FAR MORE Accurate AND Correct than what 'you' previously CLAIMED for two reasons at least. Even IF the sun descends in the so-called 'west' 'this' OBVIOUSLY has NOT 'always happened'.

What 'you' have SAID and WRITTEN here 'this time', in relation to 'your' first sentence here, EXPRESSES and SHOWS how the 'people's', in 'those times', would SEE and/or BELIEVE 'things', based SOLELY UPON, or ACCORDING TO, 'their OWN very LIMITED 'lifetimes' and thus just as very LIMITED 'perspectives' ONLY, or what I call 'APE thinking'. And thus WHY 'you', peoples, took SO LONG to COME-TO-SEE and REALIZE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth OF 'things'.

TO KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth OF 'things' 'it' just takes SPEAKING the ACTUAL Truth, ONLY. Which is just the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING BUT the Truth.

[Age]

No and no

WHICH IS FURTHER 'evidence' that people like this one here REALLY DID NOT HAVE A CLUE what they talked ABOUT, and STATED.

I JUST SAID, SO, this reply of YOURS could be taken as YOU have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, AT ALL, whereas IRREFUTABLE PROOF that 'Life', 'Existence', AND the Universe ARE ETERNAL EXISTS.
"gary childress" JUST ASKED, What proof is there that life, existence, and the universe are eternal?


I JUST REPLIED, The physical and logical IMPOSSIBILITY that they could not be.

That there is some kind of border or limitation to those 'Things' here is solely made up by 'human thought' and 'thinking', itself, and a big reason WHY 'you', human beings, do 'this' is because 'you' have 'a beginning', and thus 'began', so 'you' IMAGINE EVERY 'thing' ELSE MUST OF ALSO.

Now if absolutely ANY one would like to share what they think or BELIEVE is 'evidence' for ANY of those 'Things' NOT being eternal and/or infinite, then please do. Then we can delve into WHERE and WHAT the DISTORTION/S and/or MISINTERPRETION/S ARE, EXACTLY.

And then "gary childress" ASKED four questions, which REALLY did NOT have MUCH AT ALL to do WITH what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

That’s your opinion. Death is my proof.

LOL 'Death' of 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, HOW are 'you' defining the 'death' word here, EXACTLY?

ALSO, that "gary childress" was NOT ACTUALLY REALLY replying to what I ACTUALLY SAID, and WROTE, here is NOT just 'my opinion' as the IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'this' can be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

[Age]

The sun has never done that and never shall.
And it does not matter what you believe.

Would you have preferred it if I had said that the image of our sun appears to descend in the western sky, and always has in my lifetime?

No because that would also be wrong. The sun is not moving with respect to the day at all.

Was the word 'day' even USED in 'that sentence'?

And the image is in your head.

OF COURSE. That is what the word 'appears' REFERS TO, EXACTLY. Or, does 'it' NOT, to you?

And if you pay attention the "sunset" position changes everyday throughout the year, which is really interesting, rarely exactly in the West, and depending on where you are on the earth.

The word 'exact' was NEVER USED nor even REFERRED TO in 'this later sentence'. The word 'western sky' can REFER TO a vastly DIFFERING sized 'area' or 'perspective'. Or, could 'it' NOT, to you? Also, the word 'sunset' was NEVER even USED, NEITHER.

And none of this reduces knowledge to belief as you suggest in the OP- what it does mean is that induction is contingent on understood conditions. Now clearly 100s of years of study has reduced your "belief" that the sun sets in the west as inadequate. Now we KNOW why the sun appears to act that way, and we also know it is contingent on the motion of the earth as it rotates on its own axis, and on the trajectory and inclination of the earth as it rotates round the sun.
We know that should these things continue then the sun shall appear in the sky and move with regular certainty and we know why. None of this requires belief.

[Age]

The mirror is as eternal as eteral can ever be, however, all reflections in the mirror are ... transitoree.

So what?

Well, it's only everything.

What does the 'it' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM is ONLY 'everything'?

[Age]

n.b. “appears to”.

No - that is the least important remark I have made.
What only "appears to" is not knoweldge, is the point
I have told you want is known in regards to YOUE thread.
So if you are going to bother to respond to a post, at least have the decency to read it and respond to the main point as it relates to your original Post. Otherwise this is just another empty thread and a waste of everyones time like so many other threads on theis degenerating Forum.
I should not have to remind you of the point you were making in the OP.

Perhaps you need to re-read my post where I suggested a rewording of my OP, the one where I clearly intended to improve my OP.

If you bury your main point amongst other points, expect a reply to any of your points.

Yes, appearances may not be knowledge. Nevertheless you should be able to state that what appears to you is what appears to you.

And doing so IS expressing the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth ONLY, which there is just about NOTHING 'better' one could do.

Clearly, the vernacular is out of touch with physics.

However, the main point of my OP isn’t about the sun.

If you can’t refrain from ad homs, you are one who pollutes this forum.

And I apologize for resorting to ad homs in my own response.

[Gary Childress]

I WILL WAIT to SEE how 'you' DEFINE the word 'paradox' here, FIRST.

Will this work as a definition of the word paradox?

A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Have you EVER NOTICED that the word 'paradox' is ACTUALLY A 'paradox' of 'itself'?

AS the word 'paradox' can mean BOTH, what you wrote here, AND, 'a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement or proposition, but which on further reflection actually expresses a truth'.

So what 'this' literally means is 'we' can make 'this' WORK, as a definition, in just about ANY way 'we' like.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed and everyone was to live forever, where would the matter eventually come from to create more humans?

WHY did you 'now' bring the 'matter' word into this discussion?

Also, what you keep MISSING here is that what 'you' ASSUME 'you' are, EXACTLY, may NOT ACTUALLY be 'that' AT ALL.

How do you define the word 'you' and/or 'person', EXACTLY?

If every living being (let alone just human beings) in the universe were preserved in some shape or form (say even just preserving all the conversations we have on the Internet over the course of time), it would continually take up more and more matter and energy to preserve more such information as both new beings are created and old beings create more and more information.

WHY would 'you' even PRESUME or ASSUME that 'this' could even happen and occur?

And, WHY are 'you' even bringing 'this idea' into 'our discussion'?

Or if it is only old beings who want to preserve information and stop new beings from arriving, then eventually, it will use up all the matter and energy in the universe to preserve that information. And if we prevent new beings from arriving, who is going to till the soil and grow crops so that the old generation can continue?

'your' very first 'if' here was so FAR OFF TOPIC, I am still wondering WHY 'you' brought 'it' into 'our discussion' here.

And, from 'your' first 'if' here 'you' have just KEPT GETTING FURTHER and FURTHER OFF TOPIC, and thus OFF TRACK.

If the old generation creates a completely automated world that services them (without the need of new arrivals to work), then how long can the old generation preserve its memories and information without using up all the matter in the universe?

'your' very first 'if' had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have SAID, nor CLAIMED, here so that 'if' IS MOOT. Thus, the rest of these 'ideas', following on from 'your' OWN IMAGININGS, have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Or is it not the case that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed?

'Matter', 'space', AND 'energy' are NOT 'created' NOR 'destroyed' in the sense that 'they' BEGAN, nor will CEASE, to exist.

Also, for ALL of 'those of you', who CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN and/or will CEASE to exist, will 'you' EXPLAIN how 'this' could ACTUALLY happen IF 'matter' and/or 'energy' is neither created nor destroyed?

If 'you' will NOT EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION, INCONSISTENCY, and/or CONFLICT here, then WHY NOT?

The contradiction is that the more we try to preserve, the more matter we use for the purpose of preservation as opposed to other things (such as supporting new creation). As far as I'm aware, none of us can live forever. None of us can be remembered forever. I'm simply saying as a 56-year-old man who has realized how my time in this world is growing increasingly shorter, that I have to deal with the problem of finality. It's ever-present and ever-knawing at my mind, like termites on a temple made of wood. It's all I can think about.

Last March I told doctors to take my father off life support. He had stated in his "living will" that he did not want to be on any kind of artificial support that would severely reduce his quality of life and independence. So I made that decision while he was on life support. Ever since then, I've wrestled with the thought that I killed my own father.

However, my mother and I could not help him because he had become immobile from weakness and would have been bedridden with me carrying him to the bathroom. Even when he was able to support himself a little it was at times almost impossible for me to carry him to the bathroom without almost breaking my back and causing him a lot of pain from trying to manhandle him.

There were also issues of whether or not his Medicare would cover the costs of assisted living. So when the doctors told me his chances of getting off life support were unlikely and that if he did he would be on dialysis and a feeding tube in nursing care, I made the decision. He was accustomed to living in our home watching TV and doing as he pleased. A nursing home would have been an incredible shock to his system. The one time he was in extended rehab for knee surgery in a nursing home for a few weeks, he said it was the worst experience he had ever had and constantly asked us to get him out, and for that reason he refused surgery on his other knee, just to avoid that experience again.

I made that choice and I will follow my father if it comes down to it. The hospital said my father finally passed under sedation and painkillers. I hope he didn't suffer. I hope I made the right decision. But it is also a decision I feel someone will probably have to make for me. And all I can remember was one of the nurses treating my father in a very rude way when he came back from x-rays that showed he had a broken hip. He contracted pneumonia while waiting in the hospital for hip surgery.

For me, it's a wake-up call. My fate could be something similar. I was choked with tears when I said goodbye to him, however, I was told he was unconscious when my mother and I said our final goodbyes.

The end is a sobering thing to me. I think about it a lot. One of the most sobering thoughts is that there is a point, where I could be preserved from dying, hooking me up to machines with a room full of nurses catering to my survival. Or I could let those nurses go deliver babies or perform routine procedures treating broken bones from people such as construction workers who are out fixing our roads and building things. And in the end, I am under no belief that doctors and nurses who make the decision to end my life are going to be the least bit mournful of me. It's part of their job. Nobody is going to cry on my grave. I have no relatives after mom departs.

There's something disconcerting about dying like a pet animal that has outlived its appeal to the family.

I also sometimes wonder how my body should be treated when I'm dead. The thought of being pickled with whatever they put in corpses for burial these days kind of unnerves me. In the end, I think Diogenes of Synope has a good point. Just feed my corpse to sharks, vultures, hyaenas, or something that could use me for food for its own survival. At the very least let bacteria and microbes feast on me. No pickling, please.



¯\_(*_*)_/¯