What is philosophy?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:40 am
Age wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:01 am
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:00 pm What meaning we attach to words makes no difference to what is the case.
LOL Okay, if you BELIEVE SO.

But, if this is what you now BELIEVE is true, then this makes proving what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, regarding thee Universe, Itself, even far more simpler and easier.
Then will you do so?
How about shall you do this?
uwot
Posts: 5408
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:40 amThen will you do so?
How about shall you do this?
Could slow things up:
Age wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:37 pmIf you just used the 'will you' words instead of the 'can you' words, then this speeds the process up, CONSIDERABLY.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:13 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:56 amIf you REALLY WANT me to support my claim/s here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it.
Okie-dokie. Here's a claim:
Age wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:01 am... I can also prove 'that' the Universe is spatially infinite and temporally eternal, and did NOT begin NOR is expanding, through and by a 'logically reasoned' discussion, which, in turn, leads back to what the word 'Universe' once meant anyway.
Will you support it?
FINALLY.

1. If every action has a reaction, then this re-acting process is continual, and thus could not have a beginning, nor an end. A 'reaction', is just an other action.

2. Cause and effect means there could not have been a beginning, nor an end.

3. If energy can be changed from one to another, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, and the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, just merely changing from one form to another, then this means the Universe is always existing, or temporally eternal.

4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.

5. The Universe is made up of matter, and distances between matter. The only end to spatial distance is matter.

Now, if ANY one REALLY WANTS me to support ANY of these claims here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it/them.
uwot
Posts: 5408
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pmNow, if ANY one REALLY WANTS me to support ANY of these claims here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it/them.
Let's start with number 1:
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pmIf every action has a reaction, then this re-acting process is continual, and thus could not have a beginning, nor an end. A 'reaction', is just an other action.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:56 amIf you REALLY WANT me to support my claim/s here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it... I can also prove 'that' the Universe is spatially infinite and temporally eternal, and did NOT begin NOR is expanding, through and by a 'logically reasoned' discussion, which, in turn, leads back to what the word 'Universe' once meant anyway.
This claim is inherently unsupportable since no evidence could be brought to bear to establish that claim.
Can you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here?

If yes, then will you?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm As it is, all the evidence seem to point the other way.
If you would like to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSS it, then I am more than READY TO.

What 'evidence' is there that the Universe began, and is expanding?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm Simply this - if the universe were of infinite size and has existed forever then light travelling from the nearest and the most distant (infinite distance) would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so.
What does "would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so" even mean or refer to?

Light diminishes over distance so HOW could light from the most distant, or even a certain distance, reach earth?

And, light comes from stars, and stars, unlike the Universe, are NOT eternal anyway.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm In such a universe the entire "night" sky would be brighter than the sun, as there would be no gaps between the stars.
But if, as proposed, light can NOT escape from a black hole, then wherever there is a black hole, light could not be seen. So, if this is true, the entire "night" sky could not be brighter than the sun. Black holes would cause 'gaps between stars', causing an appearance as just what is observed NOW.

Also, because light diminishes over distance, only the closer stars would shine on earth. The stars further distance away, which do not shine on earth and so can not be seen, could cause an appearance of 'darkness', or gaps, between those stars, which can be observed and seen.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:40 am
Age wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:01 amLOL Okay, if you BELIEVE SO.

But, if this is what you now BELIEVE is true, then this makes proving what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, regarding thee Universe, Itself, even far more simpler and easier.
Then will you do so?
How about shall you do this?
Is the definition of the word 'shall' mean that much of a difference to the definition of the word 'will' that is would really make that much of a difference here?

If yes, then what is that difference, EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:47 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:40 amThen will you do so?
How about shall you do this?

Could slow things up:
WHY do you think or believe that that word could slow things up here?
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:47 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:37 pmIf you just used the 'will you' words instead of the 'can you' words, then this speeds the process up, CONSIDERABLY.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:03 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pmNow, if ANY one REALLY WANTS me to support ANY of these claims here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it/them.
Let's start with number 1:
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pmIf every action has a reaction, then this re-acting process is continual, and thus could not have a beginning, nor an end. A 'reaction', is just an other action.
Well there is an action-reaction process, in action now, correct?

If yes, then can ANY one provide a logically reasoned explanation of how this could begin?

If yes, then will you/they?

Also, if at the end of a black hole there is said to be 'singularity', and that the big bang is the result of an expanding 'singularity', then the reaction of a singularity expanding, could just be caused by the action of that singularity being formed, or created, at the end of a black hole.

Oh, I forgot to mention that all of this is ALL depended upon the definition for the 'Universe' word being Totality, ALL-OF-THIS, Everything, or any other definition that includes the encompassing of ALL things.

Now, if ANY one wants to use a DIFFERENT definition for the word 'Universe', then what I am saying and claiming is moot.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 3174
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:13 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:56 amIf you REALLY WANT me to support my claim/s here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it.
Okie-dokie. Here's a claim:
Age wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:01 am... I can also prove 'that' the Universe is spatially infinite and temporally eternal, and did NOT begin NOR is expanding, through and by a 'logically reasoned' discussion, which, in turn, leads back to what the word 'Universe' once meant anyway.
Will you support it?
FINALLY.

1. If every action has a reaction, then this re-acting process is continual, and thus could not have a beginning, nor an end. A 'reaction', is just an other action.
Problem 1 with your 1. ... That's a big "if"

Problem 2 ... You have the entire thing logically backwards. You would need to be arguing that every action IS a reaction, not that every action HAS a reaction for the conclusion to be derived from the premise and apply to the first ever action. And then you would be deep into an infinte regress problem which you could never possibly escape.

You can probably consult Eggnog7 to get some banal argument that action is reaction if you want, but it would probably arrive by way of some excruciating geometry bullshit that assumes any two things of which any similar predicate is true must be identical.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 2. Cause and effect means there could not have been a beginning, nor an end.
As above, that would need to be cause IS effect otherwise you can halt at least at one end of the causal chain simply by running out of effects.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 3. If energy can be changed from one to another, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, and the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, just merely changing from one form to another, then this means the Universe is always existing, or temporally eternal.
That's some contingent "If" stuff you have going on there. At best you could have an argument that was constrined to "the best of our knowledge as currently constituted" which seems to be less than you are looking for.
Also it doesn't seem like this clause is even important to any argument. Did you throw it in for the extra sciency feel of it?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.
Here you are substiting poetic mysticism for argument. By attempting to use a rhetorical flourish about constant and stable states of change you have obscured (unsuccessfully) the fact that you are extrapolating from empirical observation (changing wavelengths of light indicating movement of celestial objects) to a deduction that this must be an eternal state with no end, a conclusion that cannot be sustained by that sort of observation.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 5. The Universe is made up of matter, and distances between matter. The only end to spatial distance is matter.
Why is it true to say the universe is made of X rather than among other things the universe is made of X
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm Now, if ANY one REALLY WANTS me to support ANY of these claims here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it/them.
Meh.
uwot
Posts: 5408
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:19 pmWell there is an action-reaction process, in action now, correct?
Newton's third law of motion. Yeah, as I'm sure you appreciate, that doesn't apply at the quantum level, and the hypothesis that the big bang singularity was smaller than the nucleus of an atom makes it a quantum event.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:19 pmIf yes, then can ANY one provide a logically reasoned explanation of how this could begin?

If yes, then will you/they?
You are the one making the claim that the universe didn't have a beginning. It is for you to argue the case you are making. All you have so far is an argument from ignorance; I'm not being rude, that's just what it's called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance It is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow from the fact that I can't prove that the universe had a beginning that it didn't. The evidence I know of overwhelmingly supports the expanding universe hypothesis; your evidence against is nothing more substantial than woeful logic. You have to do better.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

This is like watching paint dry.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:56 amIf you REALLY WANT me to support my claim/s here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it... I can also prove 'that' the Universe is spatially infinite and temporally eternal, and did NOT begin NOR is expanding, through and by a 'logically reasoned' discussion, which, in turn, leads back to what the word 'Universe' once meant anyway.
This claim is inherently unsupportable since no evidence could be brought to bear to establish that claim.
Can you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here?
Yes. you might want to think about reading a whole post before you reply.

If yes, then will you?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm As it is, all the evidence seem to point the other way.
If you would like to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSS it, then I am more than READY TO.

What 'evidence' is there that the Universe began, and is expanding?
All of known science up to this point and all evidence which shows red shift and limits to the size fo the universe.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm Simply this - if the universe were of infinite size and has existed forever then light travelling from the nearest and the most distant (infinite distance) would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so.
What does "would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so" even mean or refer to?


Light diminishes over distance so HOW could light from the most distant, or even a certain distance, reach earth?
No light does not diminish.

And, light comes from stars, and stars, unlike the Universe, are NOT eternal anyway.
The most basic and fundemental laws of the conservation of energy and matter insist that light does not diminish.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm In such a universe the entire "night" sky would be brighter than the sun, as there would be no gaps between the stars.
But if, as proposed, light can NOT escape from a black hole, then wherever there is a black hole, light could not be seen. So, if this is true, the entire "night" sky could not be brighter than the sun. Black holes would cause 'gaps between stars', causing an appearance as just what is observed NOW.
You are flailing about desperately to protect your idiotic idea.
Black holes are possible, and theoretical. There is one possible confimed observation. To support your desperate claim you would need black holes to be everywhere.

Also, because light diminishes over distance, only the closer stars would shine on earth. The stars further distance away, which do not shine on earth and so can not be seen, could cause an appearance of 'darkness', or gaps, between those stars, which can be observed and seen.
What do you think makes light diminish? Where does it all go.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:13 am Okie-dokie. Here's a claim:Will you support it?
FINALLY.

1. If every action has a reaction, then this re-acting process is continual, and thus could not have a beginning, nor an end. A 'reaction', is just an other action.
Problem 1 with your 1. ... That's a big "if"
1. What does the word 'problem' actually mean or refer to, to you?

To me, a 'problem' is nothing more than just a question posed for a solution. So, I, literally, do not see any problem at all here.

2. If you can think of; an action that does not cause a reaction, or of reaction that was not created by an action, then please provide it/them so that we can look at it/them, and then be able to further discuss this. Until then EVERY action causes a reaction, and vis-versa, EVERY reaction was caused by an action.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm Problem 2 ... You have the entire thing logically backwards. You would need to be arguing that every action IS a reaction, not that every action HAS a reaction
Okay, thank you.

If EVERY action IS a re-action, then...

I also did say, to point out that; A reaction is just another action. The 're' in the 're-action' word shows and infers this.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm for the conclusion to be derived from the premise and apply to the first ever action.
What first ever "action" are you referring to here?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmAnd then you would be deep into an infinte regress problem which you could never possibly escape.
If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this is ONLY what could happen to, and for, you.

Also, what is the supposed, ACTUAL, 'problem', which you percieve here that 'you', "flashdangerpants", could NEVER escape from?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmYou can probably consult Eggnog7 to get some banal argument that action is reaction if you want, but it would probably arrive by way of some excruciating geometry bullshit that assumes any two things of which any similar predicate is true must be identical.
Do you BELIEVE that an 're-action' is irrefutably NOT just an-other 'action'?

If yes, then what evidence or proof do you have and use to back up and support this BELIEF of 'yours'?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 2. Cause and effect means there could not have been a beginning, nor an end.
As above, that would need to be cause IS effect otherwise you can halt at least at one end of the causal chain simply by running out of effects.
How could there be a "running out of effects"?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 3. If energy can be changed from one to another, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, and the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, just merely changing from one form to another, then this means the Universe is always existing, or temporally eternal.
That's some contingent "If" stuff you have going on there.
And, if you NEVER explain WHY, then we will NEVER KNOW WHY.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm At best you could have an argument that was constrined to "the best of our knowledge as currently constituted" which seems to be less than you are looking for.
QUITE A LOT of the, so called, "best" of 'your', human being, knowledge as 'currently constituted', in the days when this is being written, is just plain False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm Also it doesn't seem like this clause is even important to any argument.
If you think or believe that this ALREADY proved to be true scientific claim is NOT important, NOR will be instrumental, in proving how thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, then so be it. "others" think and see otherwise.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm Did you throw it in for the extra sciency feel of it?
No.

Do you, or do you not, agree with and accept that;

Energy can be changed from one to another, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, and the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, just merely changing from one form to another?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.
Here you are substiting poetic mysticism for argument. By attempting to use a rhetorical flourish about constant and stable states of change you have obscured (unsuccessfully) the fact that you are extrapolating from empirical observation (changing wavelengths of light indicating movement of celestial objects) to a deduction that this must be an eternal state with no end, a conclusion that cannot be sustained by that sort of observation.
Yes it can and WILL BE, that is; to those who are CURIOS and OPEN.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 5. The Universe is made up of matter, and distances between matter. The only end to spatial distance is matter.
Why is it true to say the universe is made of X rather than among other things the universe is made of X
Are you suggesting that there are other things?

If yes, then what are those 'things', EXACTLY?

Also, REMEMBER, that it is through logically reasoned Truly Honest and OPEN discussions, where you learn more and anew.

Unless, OF COURSE, you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW all there is to know here, and is you do, then this means that you will NOT have a Truly OPEN and honest discussion. Either that or you are just happy and content with what you already think you know.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm Now, if ANY one REALLY WANTS me to support ANY of these claims here, then just provide the ACTUAL CLAIM, and then just ask me to support it/them.
Meh.
What does 'meh' mean, to you, EXACTLY?
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 3174
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

meh
Atla
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:54 pm 4. If red-shift is interpreted as being an expanding Universe, then blue-shift can be interpreted as a contracting Universe. Both red AND blue shift occur, which means the Universe is in a stable, or constant, state - of change.
And it's not a problem for you that only about 100 nearby galaxies are blushifted, while the other hundreds of billions of galaxies are redshifted?
Post Reply