What is philosophy?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:03 amANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS.
It's all here Age:
WHAT is "all here"?

Please STOP speaking in riddles. I suggest say what you mean, and, mean what you say.

Are you 'trying to' suggest that ALL the evidence in the Universe that the Universe is expanding is HERE in your little comic book, or just in chapter 1 of your little comic book.

But if this is not what you are 'trying to' suggest here, then WHAT are you 'trying to' suggest here?
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html complete with fornicating unicorns. I'm still editing, so they might not make the cut, but it's my book and I think they're funny. So yah boo to anti-unicornists.
The primary evidence that the universe is expanding is the red shift.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

This is what I have been SEEKING and ASKING FOR.

So, red shift is the PRIMARY evidence that the Universe is expanding.

Now, what is blue shift the PRIMARY evidence for EXACTLY?

And, when, and if, you PROVIDE that answer, then I will ask you just how is red shift, supposedly, "evidence" for an expanding Universe.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am Supporting evidence for a big bang is the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Has ANY one here asked for evidence for a big bang?

A big bang has NEVER been in dispute. However, if a big bang MUST be the start or the beginning of the Universe, then a big bang is in dispute.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am I cannot show you thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE because I don't have an observatory to hand.
Just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR - I did NOT want you to PROVIDE me with an observatory, I just wanted you to PROVIDE me with or SHOW me the ACTUAL evidence that you human beings use, and which you CLAIM backs up and supports the HYPOTHESIS/PRESUMPTION that the Universe is expanding and/or began.

By the way, NO observatory, in the days when this was written, could SHOW me an expanding Universe NOR a beginning to the Universe, ANYWAY. So, even if you had ANY observatory "at hand" it would still NOT do YOUR CLAIMS any good.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am You are not compelled to believe that the evidence exists,
JUST MAYBE if you can EVER get around to COMPREHENDING that I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, then you MIGHT come around to SEEING WHERE I am ACTUALLY COMING FROM.

Until it is EXPLAINED WHY the, so called, "evidence" points or leads to what is CLAIMED,

That the "evidence" exists has NEVER been in question. i have just asked what 'you', individually, use for the evidence for YOUR CLAIMS.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am in which case you would be a conspiracy nut, or you might think you have a better explanation for the red shift and the CMBR, in which case you are welcome to share your hypothesis.
I have been TRYING TO.

'you', people, here, HOWEVER, BELIEVE 100% that I CAN NOT DO IT.

This is partly due to the FACT that you BELIEVE 100% that the Universe IS EXPANDING and DID BEGIN.

I can NOT provide ANY explanation to ANY one who BELIEVES OTHERWISE. This is BECAUSE they are NOT OPEN to IT. AS EVIDENCED and PROVED above.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am From the little I have gleaned so far, your argument is 1: 'Universe' means infinite, and infinite is already as big as it gets.
What you have gleaned then is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong, and NOTHING like what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and WRITTEN, as EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am 2: Causal chains cannot have a beginning, therefore the universe didn't. That is just shitty medieval logic,
LOL "shitty medieval logic".

What are you suggesting is SHITTY about 'causal chains'? And, is SHITTY the word you REALLY ACTUALLY MEAN?

Some could call this a Truly SHITTY way of "counter arguing".

Does the Universe contain causal chains, to you?

Every action has a reaction, the cause and effect process, and, energy cannot be destroyed nor created, are pretty well thought about as being actually True, Right, and Correct, within the scientific community, correct? Or, is this WRONG ALSO?

By the way, EVERY chain exists within the Universe. So, ALL causal chains ACTUALLY exist within the Universe, and, If every action has a reaction, the cause and effect process, and energy cannot be destroyed nor created leads to a causal chain without beginning nor ending, then WHY would ANY one think, let alone BELIEVE, that there was even a "beginning" in the FIRST PLACE?
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:01 am but if you have something better, stop wasting everyone's time and spit it out. You will never know if people are ready to receive your wisdom until you tell them what it is.
It has been said previously that if you want to PROVE some thing/theory/hypothesis is false, wrong, and/or incorrect, then you have to KNOW that thing/theory/hypothesis.

WELL, I can NOT prove your assumptions/theories/hypothesis/guesses/claims/suppositions/presumptions false, wrong, nor incorrect if you do NOT SHOW nor SHARE them with me.

All I have to go on here is that red shift is the PRIMARY evidence for an expanding Universe hypothesis and that cmbr is supporting evidence for just some bang, which is called a big one.

Red shift AND cmbr mean MANY DIFFERENT things to MANY DIFFERENT people. So, for me to be able to EXPLAIN to each and EVERY one of you WHY those things do NOT support what you ALREADY think or BELIEVE is true, I FIRST NEED to KNOW each and EVERY one of your OWN views and perspectives of this.

In case you have NOT YET NOTICED, people do NOT listen to me.

'you', people, much prefer to listen to "yourselves", and to those who you think or BELIEVE KNOW BETTER. It is NOT just the BELIEF/S in 'you', individually, which I have to LEARN how to circumvent and override, but it is ALL of your BELIEFS. So, until you start being Truly OPEN and Honest with me, about YOUR BELIEFS, and YOUR CLAIMS here, then I can NOT learn to find the RIGHT WORDS to make you SEE things FAR MORE CLEARLY.

So, what EXACTLY is in red shift that SUPPOSEDLY is evidence for the WHOLE of the Universe expanding, and, what EXACTLY about some cosmic microwave background radiation, which SUPPOSEDLY is evidence for the WHOLE of the Universe beginning?

If you EVER get around to EXPLAINING what EXACTLY in these things, SUPPOSEDLY, is "evidence", then I can SHOW and TELL you WHY they are NOT.

By the way, you can keep CHANGING your book, hoping that one day you will find the "right" words, which will back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. But just to inform you, you WILL NOT.

I suggest CHANGING your BELIEFS FIRST, instead of LOOKING FOR and CHANGING the, so called, "evidence" and "words".

Although 'beliefs', and 'words' and their 'definitions' can be CHANGED ACTUAL EVIDENCE can NOT. And, red shift and cmbr are NOT evidence for what some of 'you', people, BELIEVE they are.

Red shift BECAME "evidence" for an expanding Universe because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began, and, cosmic microwave background radiation BECAME "evidence" for the big bang because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began. Or, there was ALREADY an HYPOTHESIS, which some people went LOOKING FOR "evidence" for.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:52 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:08 am So, you are saying that a blue-shift NATURALLY leads 'you', people
Wrong
people, in the days when this was written, to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding, although you also CLAIM this is just an hypothesis.
Wrong
And what makes this all the more HILARIOUS is the FACT that these same 'people' BELIEVE that their OWN BELIEFS do NOT prevent NOR stop them from SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and the last one is your delusion
Even LOOK AT the CLAIM that I LITERALLY STATED, AGAIN, that I have no idea what people mean by it, and if questioned, this one would BELIEVE that this is NOT a DISTORTION of what is ACTUALLY True and Right, AT ALL.
Wrong, delusion
This person here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what it says is NOT a DISTORTED VERSION of what is True and Reality, Itself.
Wrong, delusion
Even if I was to ask this one to CLARIFY if it KNOWS what the word 'literally' means, it would probably NEVER answer the ACTUAL question posed to it. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
Wrong, and I wouldn't answer because you wouldn't understand the clarification either, it would be a waste of time.

Your brain is completely dysfunctional, you understand nothing about humans, nothing about words, nothing about beliefs, nothing about the world, nothing about proofs, nothing about truth, nothing about the expanding universe idea, and nothing about "thee One".

Most four year olds are farther developed than you, yet you seem to be an adult human being. I find this slightly interesting. If people told you something as simple as "wash your hands" you still wouldn't really understand it. But you have an almost infinite capacity for bitching. It's like your entire brain was peforming this one task.

It's like you're an idiot-savant, but whereas most other idiot-savants have skills in mathematics, music etc. you are a savant in bitching.
AND, what EXACTLY have I SUPPOSEDLY, so called, "bitched" about?
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:07 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:52 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:08 am So, you are saying that a blue-shift NATURALLY leads 'you', people
Wrong
people, in the days when this was written, to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding, although you also CLAIM this is just an hypothesis.
Wrong
And what makes this all the more HILARIOUS is the FACT that these same 'people' BELIEVE that their OWN BELIEFS do NOT prevent NOR stop them from SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and the last one is your delusion
Even LOOK AT the CLAIM that I LITERALLY STATED, AGAIN, that I have no idea what people mean by it, and if questioned, this one would BELIEVE that this is NOT a DISTORTION of what is ACTUALLY True and Right, AT ALL.
Wrong, delusion
This person here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what it says is NOT a DISTORTED VERSION of what is True and Reality, Itself.
Wrong, delusion
Even if I was to ask this one to CLARIFY if it KNOWS what the word 'literally' means, it would probably NEVER answer the ACTUAL question posed to it. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
Wrong, and I wouldn't answer because you wouldn't understand the clarification either, it would be a waste of time.

Your brain is completely dysfunctional, you understand nothing about humans, nothing about words, nothing about beliefs, nothing about the world, nothing about proofs, nothing about truth, nothing about the expanding universe idea, and nothing about "thee One".

Most four year olds are farther developed than you, yet you seem to be an adult human being. I find this slightly interesting. If people told you something as simple as "wash your hands" you still wouldn't really understand it. But you have an almost infinite capacity for bitching. It's like your entire brain was peforming this one task.

It's like you're an idiot-savant, but whereas most other idiot-savants have skills in mathematics, music etc. you are a savant in bitching.
AND, what EXACTLY have I SUPPOSEDLY, so called, "bitched" about?
Is there anything you actually know?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:07 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:52 am
Wrong


Wrong


Wrong, wrong, wrong, and the last one is your delusion


Wrong, delusion


Wrong, delusion


Wrong, and I wouldn't answer because you wouldn't understand the clarification either, it would be a waste of time.

Your brain is completely dysfunctional, you understand nothing about humans, nothing about words, nothing about beliefs, nothing about the world, nothing about proofs, nothing about truth, nothing about the expanding universe idea, and nothing about "thee One".

Most four year olds are farther developed than you, yet you seem to be an adult human being. I find this slightly interesting. If people told you something as simple as "wash your hands" you still wouldn't really understand it. But you have an almost infinite capacity for bitching. It's like your entire brain was peforming this one task.

It's like you're an idiot-savant, but whereas most other idiot-savants have skills in mathematics, music etc. you are a savant in bitching.
AND, what EXACTLY have I SUPPOSEDLY, so called, "bitched" about?
Is there anything you actually know?
I KNOW that you have NEVER backed up and supported ANY of YOUR CLAIMS, which I have CHALLENGED you on and about. And, I also KNOW that you have CLARIFIED only the most minuscule amounts of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have posed to you. Which, by the way, you have just SHOWN and PROVEN your INABILITY of, ONCE AGAIN, here.

I have SHOWN the PROOF for MY CLAIMS, now if ANY one wants to CHALLENGE or QUESTION me on those PROOFS, then PLEASE go on right ahead.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:28 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:07 am

AND, what EXACTLY have I SUPPOSEDLY, so called, "bitched" about?
Is there anything you actually know?
I KNOW that you have NEVER backed up and supported ANY of YOUR CLAIMS, which I have CHALLENGED you on and about. And, I also KNOW that you have CLARIFIED only the most minuscule amounts of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have posed to you. Which, by the way, you have just SHOWN and PROVEN your INABILITY of, ONCE AGAIN, here.

I have SHOWN the PROOF for MY CLAIMS, now if ANY one wants to CHALLENGE or QUESTION me on those PROOFS, then PLEASE go on right ahead.
These are just more lies, showing that you don't know these either.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:38 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:28 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:15 am
Is there anything you actually know?
I KNOW that you have NEVER backed up and supported ANY of YOUR CLAIMS, which I have CHALLENGED you on and about. And, I also KNOW that you have CLARIFIED only the most minuscule amounts of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have posed to you. Which, by the way, you have just SHOWN and PROVEN your INABILITY of, ONCE AGAIN, here.

I have SHOWN the PROOF for MY CLAIMS, now if ANY one wants to CHALLENGE or QUESTION me on those PROOFS, then PLEASE go on right ahead.
These are just more lies, showing that you don't know these either.
OBVIOUSLY 'you', "atla", are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of being able to CHALLENGE or EVEN QUESTION me. The reason for this is ALREADY KNOWN.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:51 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:38 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:28 am

I KNOW that you have NEVER backed up and supported ANY of YOUR CLAIMS, which I have CHALLENGED you on and about. And, I also KNOW that you have CLARIFIED only the most minuscule amounts of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have posed to you. Which, by the way, you have just SHOWN and PROVEN your INABILITY of, ONCE AGAIN, here.

I have SHOWN the PROOF for MY CLAIMS, now if ANY one wants to CHALLENGE or QUESTION me on those PROOFS, then PLEASE go on right ahead.
These are just more lies, showing that you don't know these either.
OBVIOUSLY 'you', "atla", are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of being able to CHALLENGE or EVEN QUESTION me. The reason for this is ALREADY KNOWN.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. :) Don't know these either
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:04 amRed shift BECAME "evidence" for an expanding Universe because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began, and, cosmic microwave background radiation BECAME "evidence" for the big bang because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began. Or, there was ALREADY an HYPOTHESIS, which some people went LOOKING FOR "evidence" for.
These days technology can create and store so much data, that without an algorithm looking for evidence for an hypothesis, it is all just noise. You have to have an idea of what a needle is before you start searching the haystack. That was not the case in the early twentieth century when astronomers, particularly Vesto Slipher first recorded galactic red shift. At the time, it was assumed that the universe was static, so much so that Albert Einstein made up the 'cosmological constant', a force he believed had to exist to explain why the universe wasn't shrinking because of gravity. So guess what Age? Einstein agreed with you that the universe wasn't expanding until the evidence that it is was shown to him. So your assertion that the belief that the theory preceded the evidence in this case is simply wrong. But the good news is that you now have an opportunity to be even more like Einstein by making yourself familiar with the evidence, some of which is included in my "little comic book" https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html If you read that and understand it, you will see why people who know what they are talking about believe that the expanding universe is a tenable hypothesis. If you get to the fornicating unicorns, there is a chance that you will appreciate that no reputable scientist or philosopher believes any single hypothesis without accepting that new evidence might compel them to change their mind.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:55 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:12 ammeh
If this is ALL you can say here, then you CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY can NOT clarify nor elaborate on your positions, are NOT able to back up and support your OWN CLAIMS, nor are you able to argue against what I have said so far.

The readers thus are working out which view is FAR MORE CORRECT than the other one is.
I correctly informed you that in your argument you tried a logically unsustainable maneuver to move from an empirical observation to deductive conclusion. Even if you weren't entirely confused about redshift, you still would have been trying to use its existence to justify a conclusion that it cannot support.

Your response to that was just that people who have open minds will believe you. Which was a stupid response that only deserves a "meh". "My argument is great and you are a poopy head for not agreeing with me" will rarely get you more than that.

You have been paid in full that which is due to you.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:08 pm

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?



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.



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.



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.
Do you ACTUALLY REALLY BELIEVE that ALL known science, just up to this minuscule point in human evolution, when this was being written, and ALL evidence shows red shift, which limits the size of the universe, is ACTUAL PROOF that the Universe, Itself, is expanding and began?
:lol:
You are really asking me would I throw away the science I know and replace it with your wild speculation.....




Hang on......



Let me think...




Wait a minute.....




Er.....



Take a wild guess!

Fuck no!
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:16 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:04 amRed shift BECAME "evidence" for an expanding Universe because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began, and, cosmic microwave background radiation BECAME "evidence" for the big bang because some people ALREADY BELIEVED that the Universe began. Or, there was ALREADY an HYPOTHESIS, which some people went LOOKING FOR "evidence" for.
These days technology can create and store so much data, that without an algorithm looking for evidence for an hypothesis, it is all just noise. You have to have an idea of what a needle is before you start searching the haystack. That was not the case in the early twentieth century when astronomers, particularly Vesto Slipher first recorded galactic red shift. At the time, it was assumed that the universe was static, so much so that Albert Einstein made up the 'cosmological constant', a force he believed had to exist to explain why the universe wasn't shrinking because of gravity. So guess what Age? Einstein agreed with you that the universe wasn't expanding until the evidence that it is was shown to him.
But there is NO 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding.

'Galatic red shift' EXITS, but it is NOT 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding.

The INTERPRETATION that 'galactic red shift' means there IS EVIDENCE for an expanding Universe is JUST AN INTERPRETATION, ONLY.

Also, ASSUMING that the Universe was STATIC is just ANOTHER ABSURD thing. And, 'trying to' make something up, like 'cosmological constant' to fit in with one's ALREADY made up, and maybe BELIEVED, ASSUMPTION is IDIOTIC and STUPID at best.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:16 pm So your assertion that the belief that the theory preceded the evidence in this case is simply wrong.
Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of you NOT providing the ACTUAL CLAIM, or 'theory' here in this instance, and then just CLAIMING that "I am wrong".

Your words do NOT even logically follow. So, let us have a LOOK AT them.

I have NO assertion that the belief that the theory preceded the evidence in this case is simply wrong.

What BELIEF are you referring to here? A BELIEF 'I' have or that 'you' and/or "others" have?

What THEORY are you referring to here? You seem to just TWIST and DISTORT what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT into SOME thing, which OBVIOUSLY would be WRONG or NOT MAKE SENSE.

I suggest NEXT TIME repeat MY WORDS EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE, and then EXPLAIN HOW and WHY, you THINK, 'those words' am wrong.

LOOK, nearly ALL of 'you', religious and scientific types of people BELIEVE the Universe began. Just ask ANY number of those who are "religious" and "scientists" for the PROOF of this. This BELIEVING the Universe began began with just three VERY SIMPLE words, and this has been going on for well over a thousand years now, which OBVIOUSLY preceded red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation, and, whenever a theory or hypothesis is made up, then depending on by who and/or what they are made up from, will influence how many "others" will go LOOKING FOR "evidence" and how strongly they will CLAIM that they have "evidence" for that theory or hypothesis.

If you STILL can NOT YET SEE 'confirmation bias' in action, in its Truest and FULLEST form, then the ONLY ones you are FOOLING are "yourselves".

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:16 pm But the good news is that you now have an opportunity to be even more like Einstein by making yourself familiar with the evidence, some of which is included in my "little comic book" https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html If you read that and understand it, you will see why people who know what they are talking about believe that the expanding universe is a tenable hypothesis.
I have ALREADY read that little book, and I have ALREADY REFUTED that, so called, "evidence". JUST LIKE I read your OTHER little book, which you CHANGED, partly BECAUSE I ENLIGHTENED you to WHERE you were WRONG, which can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN, EXACTLY, by HOW you have CHANGED your wording in this book. But, which unfortunately for you, have STILL NOT got it Right.
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:16 pm If you get to the fornicating unicorns, there is a chance that you will appreciate that no reputable scientist or philosopher believes any single hypothesis without accepting that new evidence might compel them to change their mind.
You keep repeating this same sort of thing, without NOTICING that I have ALREADY SHOWN you WHY the HYPOTHESIS is Wrong to BEGIN WITH.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, in the Universe, that could compel ANY Truly OPEN person to formulate ANY hypothesis that the Universe is expanding. YET here we were, in the days when this was being written, with thousands upon thousands of, so called, "reputable" "scientists" and "philosophers" BELIEVING that the hypothesis is the, so called, "best current knowledge".

The HYPOTHESIS is BASED ON, so called, "evidence", which does NOT even exist. the HYPOTHESIS is REALLY based ONLY on AN INTERPRETATION that the data is evidence for an expanding Universe. So, to even begin to BELIEVE this, or ANY HYPOTHESIS for that matter, especially when there is NO ACTUALLY compelling evidence AT ALL, or ANY evidence AT ALL for that matter, which backs up and supports this HYPOTHESIS here, means that it is being done with absolutely NO evidence.

There is NO 'mind' to change. And, if ANY one accepts that "new evidence" could come along, which could change THEIR BELIEF in A HYPOTHESIS, is a SURE SIGN that the HYPOTHESIS is NOT even WORTH BELIEVING IN.

LOOK, when and if you EVER discover, or learn, and understand WHAT the Universe is FUNDAMENTALLY made up of, and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, then you WILL NOTICE and SEE just HOW what is called "evidence" here is NOT ACTUAL 'evidence', AT ALL.

Also, NONE of you WILL EXPLAIN that if red shift IS evidence that the Universe is expanding, then what is blue shift evidence of and for?

Can 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, REALLY NOT YET SEE the COINCIDENCE that the peoples before 'you, and 'you', "yourselves", think or BELIEVE that the Universe began, and then when something comes along, like red shift, which APPEARS to be evidence of an expanding Universe, which can then be transferred into "evidence" that the Universe began, as evidenced and proved in your little comic book, all of sudden became ACTUAL EVIDENCE for an expanding Universe, but blue shift is hardly ever talked about, and when questioned what blue shift is 'evidence' for, then that question is COMPLETELY IGNORED and NOT LOOKED AT, NOR DISCUSSED, AT ALL?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:55 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:12 ammeh
If this is ALL you can say here, then you CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY can NOT clarify nor elaborate on your positions, are NOT able to back up and support your OWN CLAIMS, nor are you able to argue against what I have said so far.

The readers thus are working out which view is FAR MORE CORRECT than the other one is.
I correctly informed you that in your argument you tried a logically unsustainable maneuver to move from an empirical observation to deductive conclusion.
WHEN did you "inform me" of this by use of such words as "empirical observation to deductive conclusion".

Also, I have NOT YET provide an argument. I was only asked for the PROOF of some thing.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm Even if you weren't entirely confused about redshift, you still would have been trying to use its existence to justify a conclusion that it cannot support.
And what EXACTLY are you basing this 'deductive conclusion' of YOURS on, EXACTLY?

What is with this "entirely confused about redshift" NONSENSE?

You WANT to MAKE THE CLAIM, I suggest you have the EVIDENCE and/or PROOF BEFORE you make the CLAIM.

What is there about red shift, which you BELIEVE I am "entirely confused" about? And saying ANY thing BESIDES the ACTUAL part or parts of red shift, ONLY substantiates that 'you', "flashdangerpants", are NOT well informed about red shift "yourself".

What "conclusion" do you think or BELIEVE red shift supports?

And then inform us of what you think or BELIEVE what "conclusion" I would still be trying to use red shift as a justification?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm Your response to that was just that people who have open minds will believe you.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of APE thinking. That is, basing their Assumptions on their OWN Previous Experiences.

What you said and wrote here could NOT be ANY FURTHER from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

You are SO STUCK in your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS 'you' are becoming a PRIME test subject to use as EXAMPLES for MY CLAIM about how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm Which was a stupid response that only deserves a "meh".
I would ask you to BRING FORWARD absolutely ANY thing that I have said, which led you to BELIEVE that I have responded in ANY way that ACTUALLY infers that;

People who have open minds will believe me.

But I KNOW you could NOT.

Unless, OF COURSE, you would LOVE to PROVE me WRONG, and so you will do it
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm "My argument is great and you are a poopy head for not agreeing with me" will rarely get you more than that.
I LOVE the way how some of the people, in the days when this was written, REVEAL and SHOW what they SEE, and actually BELIEVE is true.

See, I ALREADY HAVE the EVIDENCE, which PROVES that I have NEVER written ANY thing that even remotely suggests what is SEEN here, let alone written ANY thing that even states this.

Also, do NOT forget that it is you who BELIEVES some thing is true, which you have ABSOLUTELY NO 'evidence', let alone ANY 'proof' for, YET you STILL BELIEVE 'it' is true.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm You have been paid in full that which is due to you.
LOL

If ONLY you KNEW.

Just about all of you here are acting just like those who BELIEVED the earth was at the center of the Universe when they were being told that that is NOT true. That was; they could NOT prove what they BELIEVED was true, this was because there was NO ACTUAL evidence for THEIR CLAIMS, so they tried to ATTACK the person, INSTEAD.

I am telling you that what you CLAIM here and BELIEVE is true, that is; the Universe is expanding and It did begin, is NOT true, AT ALL, But because there is NO ACTUAL evidence for YOUR CLAIMS here, you can NOT prove what you BELIEVE, and so you have just 'attempted' to ATTACK the person, INSTEAD.

You will NOT LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS that I use, and DISCUSS them, and you will NOT LOOK AT WHAT I CHALLENGE you about NOR HOW I am ACTUALLY CHALLENGING you, you will ALSO NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you. The reason for ALL of this is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. Well to some of us it IS.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:10 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:25 pm
Yes. you might want to think about reading a whole post before you reply.

All of known science up to this point and all evidence which shows red shift and limits to the size fo the universe.

No light does not diminish.

The most basic and fundemental laws of the conservation of energy and matter insist that light does not diminish.

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.

What do you think makes light diminish? Where does it all go.
Do you ACTUALLY REALLY BELIEVE that ALL known science, just up to this minuscule point in human evolution, when this was being written, and ALL evidence shows red shift, which limits the size of the universe, is ACTUAL PROOF that the Universe, Itself, is expanding and began?
:lol:
You are really asking me would I throw away the science I know and replace it with your wild speculation.....




Hang on......



Let me think...




Wait a minute.....




Er.....



Take a wild guess!

Fuck no!
LOL "the science you know".

You can NOT even write down in words the "science you know".

And even the words "the science I know" is nonsensical, in and of itself. Unless, OF COURSE, you WANT to PROVE me wrong, by INFORMING 'us', readers, of what EXACTLY is "the science you know", AND, by INFORMING 'us' of what do the words "the science I know" ACTUALLY refer to and mean
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:08 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:40 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:55 pm

If this is ALL you can say here, then you CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY can NOT clarify nor elaborate on your positions, are NOT able to back up and support your OWN CLAIMS, nor are you able to argue against what I have said so far.

The readers thus are working out which view is FAR MORE CORRECT than the other one is.
I correctly informed you that in your argument you tried a logically unsustainable maneuver to move from an empirical observation to deductive conclusion.
WHEN did you "inform me" of this by use of such words as "empirical observation to deductive conclusion".
Meh. If you can't read that's not a problem I propose to fix by writing about it.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is philosophy?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:39 pm'Galatic red shift' EXITS, but it is NOT 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding.
Two questions Age:
1.Why is galactic red shift not evidence that the universe is expanding?
2. What is it evidence for?
Post Reply