Re: What is philosophy?
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm
How about shall you do this?
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
How about shall you do this?
Could slow things up:
FINALLY.
Let's start with number 1:
Can you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pmThis claim is inherently unsupportable since no evidence could be brought to bear to establish that claim.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.
If you would like to LOOK INTO this FURTHER and DISCUSS it, then I am more than READY TO.
What does "would have already reached earth and would eternally continue to do so" even mean or refer to?
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.
WHY do you think or believe that that word could slow things up here?
Well there is an action-reaction process, in action now, correct?
Problem 1 with your 1. ... That's a big "if"
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.
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.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.
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.
Why is it true to say the universe is made of X rather than among other things the universe is made of X
Meh.
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.
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.
Yes. you might want to think about reading a whole post before you reply.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:08 pmCan you back up and support this CLAIM of yours here?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pmThis claim is inherently unsupportable since no evidence could be brought to bear to establish that claim.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.
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.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?
The most basic and fundemental laws of the conservation of energy and matter insist that light does not diminish.
And, light comes from stars, and stars, unlike the Universe, are NOT eternal anyway.
You are flailing about desperately to protect your idiotic idea.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.
What do you think makes light diminish? Where does it all go.
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.
1. What does the word 'problem' actually mean or refer to, to you?
Okay, thank you.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
What first ever "action" are you referring to here?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.
If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this is ONLY what could happen to, and for, you.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.
Do you BELIEVE that an 're-action' is irrefutably NOT just an-other 'action'?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.
How could there be a "running out of effects"?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmAs 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.
And, if you NEVER explain WHY, then we will NEVER KNOW WHY.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmThat's some contingent "If" stuff you have going on there.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.
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 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.
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 Also it doesn't seem like this clause is even important to any argument.
No.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm Did you throw it in for the extra sciency feel of it?
Yes it can and WILL BE, that is; to those who are CURIOS and OPEN.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmHere 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.
Are you suggesting that there are other things?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pmWhy is it true to say the universe is made of X rather than among other things the universe is made of X
What does 'meh' mean, to you, EXACTLY?
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?