Philosophy Now Forum

Is there any progress in philosophy? Or more to the point, is there any progress in humanity, or do we simply go around in repetitious circles? Or maybe it's just me going around in circles. I give up. My productive life is over as far as I'm concerned. I'm in retirement. Game over. K: actually, be...

Do people really change core beliefs very often? And if so, what is the actual mechanism involved? Do they discover some authentic new truth about the universe that compels them to alter their beliefs or do they just get persuaded of something? How's persuasion even supposed to work? Why should any...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:16 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:04 pmX is about right, but maybe a small x.

For the record, on a scale of xs: xxxxx I reckon I'm second from the right.

Second from the right as light travels; or as an ant travels?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:11 pm Thank you for your concern. Rest assured it doesn't worry me in the slightest.

No assurance required.

It's pretty obvious that having no clue what you are talking about doesn't worry you in the slightest.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:53 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:29 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:11 pm Why should I know how you define a second?

You shouldn't. Because I don't.

Then ya don't have to worry about what a Hertz is.

I know. But you have to.

Because it's circular.

Duh! How do you define a second? You tell me, genius. Why should I know how you define a second? You shouldn't. Because I don't. I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. You can't even explain it to me without tying yourself up in a circle. However you define it - you've tied yo...

If something changes 10 times per second (e.g it has a frequency of 10 Hz) then it trivially follows that time is NOT change. Duh! Duh?!? You said the exact opposite. How do you define a second? You said that time is change. And since frequency is change per second; then frequency is time per secon...

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:20 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:40 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 10:22 am You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

How old are you, Will? Let your age be X.

My age is also X, but I thought Will was younger than me.

How do you even know you aren't the same person?

Is there any kind of problem both being and not being X years old?

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'. No, I am not. Yes you are. No, I am not. I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you. Time is change Then what's a Hertz? Change per second? Weird... It might be weird to you, but that's exactly what a Hertz is. If something changes 10 time...

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'. No, I am not. How old are you, Will? Let your age be X. What were you doing 2X years ago? The time is roughly 13.8 billion years after the big bang So you aren't X years old? The time is X years after you were born? Gotcha. Time is change Then what's a Hert...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 9:59 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 9:42 amSo there once was a point where there wasn't time and then there was.

How do you know?

Because the question "How old is the universe?" has an answer.

What was the universe up to 50 billion years ago?

Your guess is as good as mine. I mean, God is eternal, yet he created the world. So there once was a point where in the future God would create the world, but: Anything that has a "future" is temporally bound. I can't help you with your temporal confusion, buddy. Time itself is an emergen...

Forgive my blundering into theology, but does God already know everything that he will ever know, or is some knowledge reserved for some future, even more knowledgeable God? That's the whole point of theologists defining god as "eternal". So idiot-philosophers can quit playing these stupi...

There's a lot of conversation going in circles hereabouts, I propose we point the circle the other way round for a little while to see if we can break it. So my question is not imediately one of what would make morality objective, but rather one of why we would want to have the objectivity at all, ...

No, representationalism is idiotic. Once the representationalist ideal is attained you'll have your mind mirroring reality. Why? What do you get for having two copies of the same thing? What do you do next? Seriously now. You really, really need a healthy dose of anti-representationalism... https:/...