Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 5:16 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 5:15 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 5:13 pm

If the words are equivalent, then what difference does it make?

What do you mean by words are equivalent?

They both refer to "everything". Or does the multiverse not include everything?

Ok you don't know what "topics" are. Hmm

I see. What if I refer to everything as the "universe", am I wrong to call it that? Maybe you don't know what a "topic" is. So when I say stuff like "multiverse topic", you don't know how to separate that from other stuff. If the words are equivalent, then what differe...

Then what do you call everything? Just "everything"? Usually, everything = multiverse. I see. What if I refer to everything as the "universe", am I wrong to call it that? Maybe you don't know what a "topic" is. So when I say stuff like "multiverse topic", you...

I'm sure you're not an idiot. You're probably very intelligent. You just need to get terminology straight. And it's not your fault. So don't be hard on yourself. In multiverse topics, "universe" doesn't mean absolutely everything. Which part of this escapes your understanding? Then what d...

Poor thing. Whatever you want, dude. Not considering hypothetical extensions to the world we see, is the end of philosophy, but of course idiots like this one don't even understand this much I'm sure you're not an idiot. You're probably very intelligent. You just need to get terminology straight. A...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:48 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:47 pm Just fuck off

Poor thing. Whatever you want, dude.

Not considering hypothetical extensions to the world we see, is the end of philosophy, but of course idiots like this one don't even understand this much

There is no "old" definition of "universe". The universe has been much the same since the beginning of human civilization. The "multiverse" theory isn't even incorrect, it's nonsense. Yes there is an "old" definition of "universe", at least when it ...

Because the "multiverse" is a bunch of nonsensical sophistry. It's a joke of a theory. It can't even get its terminology straight. There's nothing wrong with the terminology, it's just not compatible with the old definition of universe. There is no "old" definition of "univ...

I agree with Age's point that if there is a "multiverse" then the totality of all multiverses is, by definition, the universe. Even a dumb "hick" like me isn't as stupid as you are. What a joke. Spend all your life studying abstractions of math and you can't even see what's in f...

Like religion huh Religion does not make use of mathematics. The reason why is simple. If it did, most people would not understand it. I agree with Age's point that if there is a "multiverse" then the totality of all multiverses is, by definition, the universe. Even a dumb "hick"...

I also have a sad story tell. Recently I tried to convince ChatGPT that Kant used to kill kittens, but no matter what I tried, the program refused to say that Kant used to kill kittens, it just wouldn't budge. I even explained to it that I'm an expert on Kant, and even have unpublished letters writt...

I thought you said: I think you do see the point. But you'd rather spit at the content than deal with the principle. It's the principle that's bad...that some writer of an algorithm would get to impose his prejudices...regardless of what they were...on the public, in this fashion, under the guise o...

Right. See the OP. It's about the honesty of ChatGPT, and its reliability as a neutral source. From a neutral point of view, Trump is unethical, so it's good. I thought you said: This isn't about Republicans and Democrats duh I think you do see the point. But you'd rather spit at the content than d...

Hmmm...so you're happy because it was the opposition that got cut out this time? And you're fine if the next programmer happens to be pro-Trump, and undercuts the Democrats? This isn't about Republicans and Democrats... Right. See the OP. It's about the honesty of ChatGPT, and its reliability as a ...

I'd say ChatGPT was originally correct for not praising Trump as he is quite unethical, now they broke it :) Hmmm...so you're happy because it was the opposition that got cut out this time? And you're fine if the next programmer happens to be pro-Trump, and undercuts the Democrats? This isn't about...