OK, you can pass. I'll wait for anyone else that does want and does think they can refute my claims.
No, your idea that science and philosophy are mere personal, subjective enterprises, is completely misguided. Science and philosophy are social practices, disciplines that build common knowledge on dialogue and interaction with others. The personal burden is to add one's own insights to a a systematic body of principles on which you can ground truths that are once universal and necessary. That's where refutations take place.
Which would confirm that you can only say that illusion is a possibility, as much as reality of the thing in itself is a possibility. So you cannot refute realism, you can only advocate for a sort of agnosticism: no one knows and anything goes.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amStrawman. I am pointing out that there exist multiple conceptual possibilities and no experiment you can perform to eliminate any of them.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am It only says that it could be the case that everything is an illusion, but you have no way to provide that it is the case.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "experiment", but I've chosen the only reliable philosophical path: that of realism and materialism.
No, that's only you advocating for absurdity as foundational. But it self-defeats.
Why would someone need something in an absurd world? If anything goes, everything works.
What you really mean is how one chooses to avoid epistemological nihilism and embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as the foundation of all? Well, there are several testing methods you can try on epistemological nihilists to see if they really embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as foundation of all. The only problem is, the only ones that seem to deal with the issue, choose to die.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 am Non-contradictions don't matter. That's just an axiom as arbitrary as any.
There is a Logical system and a corresponding universe in which P and ~P is false.
There is a Logical system and a corresponding universe in which P and ~P is true.
How do you empirically determine the truth about which universe you are in?
You're standing here on the old fallacy of amphiboly. The metaphorical "world" is not the same as the literal world. Logic belongs to humans and humans belong to the world. Logical contradictions exist only as errors in the structure of thought.
Fact? I beg your pardon..? By definition, if memories/experiences are an illusion, then the memory and experiences of having memories/experiences are an illusion, too. That's a lot of bearing on that "fact".Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amWhether your memories/experiences are an illusion or not has absolutely no bearing on the fact that you have memories/experiences.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am If all events in the history of the universe are nothing but an illusion, so are the causal relationships among them.
As long as my experiences don't deviate (too much) from my expectations - all's OK.
And deviation? Against what baseline can you measure a deviation if there's no baseline at all?
Yes, that sounds cool, but then why is it that no proponent of the farcical world actually embraces it and acts accordingly? If it is only something to write in an internet forum, a narrative to pose with a certain attitude, well...I do care, to see what's behind it. It can be fun, too, you know, to go to a masked ball and try to figure out who are behind the masks.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amLet it be a farce! Nothing changes in practice. We are stuck in the condition that we are stuck in. How we narrate this condition .... who cares?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am Remember, this is the card you are using to cast doubt on the possibility that the moon existed in a time period prior to the existence of humans. If that were the case, if the unfolding of events in the universe is all an illusion, then the whole societal setting that we perceive to be living in, is all a farce, including our own existence. No one is supposed to have spent 9 months inside their mother's womb, it is a false memory implanted in a perceiving mind.
No, relativity does not cancel the cause-effect relation in time. Both in classical physics (Newton's laws are still doing fine), as well as in Einstein's theories, causality remains, not allowing an effect to be before its cause. And that's the only reason why in the theory of relativity signals cannot travel to observers faster than the speed of light.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amYou can't determine causal order if the light cones of two spacetime coordinates don't intercept. This is relativity 101.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am Ok, fine, let's try that. Let's try that only the perception of the length of time changes, but the events actually do happen, and they keep happening in the order that causality requires for them to come about.
No, Lamport clocks is not, even in our wildest dreams, an example of a change in our understanding of causality.
Nonsense!! I mean, not just that I think what you said is unintended nonsense (which would imply you actually trying to find any coherence in these matters), but that you advocate for nonsense as foundational: anything goes. As a result, you feel free to contradict yourself and play arbitrarily with concepts. Of course, you're very much entitled to enunciate as much nonsense and incoherent thoughts as you like, but one always wonders why you and the rest of the posmo tribe are so concerned with the sense and coherence of others, as if there was in this farce some overarching rule of sense and logic to follow.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amPrecisely! The human time-scale is unfalsifiable - obviously! Because we, humans, define what 1 second IS, and then we interpret our experiences of time through the lens of our very own definitions.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am Then I go back to my initial statement that there's substantial evidence that the moon existed prior (by 4.5 billion years or 4.5 seconds, it doesn't matter now) to humans. It is now even more obvious that your 5-minute universe thought experiment is completely useless to refute my point.
But I already said that: to any scientists perception is reality!
The point is that if an attack involves destroying your own weapons of attack, it actually ends up being suicide, while leaving the enemy unharmed. The "anything goes" tribe, while pretending to undermine some certainties, undermines ALL certainties, including theirs.
I will not even answer this. I don't want to end up quoting Yoda.
That's pretty obvious.
It seems you're not familiar with the meaning of anarchism, but if it were to be applied to epistemology, it would be exactly epistemological nihilism.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 amIt's not epistemological nihilism. It's anarchism.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:33 am Remember, it is you who is arguing that the appearance of truth is not a reliable criteria for determining the real truth of the universe, which means you're left only with the advocacy of epistemological nihilism, because, well...anything goes, right?
What you are saying you is that you will not go that far to advocate and actually embrace your own philosophical stance if it makes your neighbor a bit uncomfortable. That's one heck of a stance!!!