-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You've obviously never played "Silly Buggers"!I suppose you could say it is a game, but usually when I think of a game there is a winner or winners and a loser or losers, which in this case there clearly is not.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@Reece
The universe is singular is it not?
That is correct "singular" = Uni
We are just two sides of a multidimensional coin.
Specifics for your "multi-dimensiontional coin", as Universe, are greatly lacking. d is diametric{ volumetric } diagonal of and XYZ aka abc-d cube [ / ]
1} X{ a } , Y{ b }, Z{ c } = mathematical coordinates for 3D SPACE ergo locational where-ness.
2} Time = locational when-ness,
.....2a} spin properties = ( 2-pitch--Xa ), ( 2-yaw--Yb ), ( 2-roll-- Zc )
Here is specifics of all that exists aka The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinitys
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i },
.....1a} absolute truth,
.....1b} relative truth,
.....1c} lies.
------------------line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
...2a} ?
...2b} ?
...2c} ?
3} spirit-2, as occupied SPACE Universe aka Uni-V-erse of observed Time aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
.....3a} metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
.....3b} metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"U" niverse / "G" od is most inclusive set as it includes the Cosmic Trinity and all of its subsets.
Universe aka Uni-V-erse #3 above is less inclusive and is not considerate of #1 and #2 above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinct kinds of meta-physical in the cosmic trinity hence the enumeration #1, 2, 3, 4.
i = ego
* i * = most complex bilateral consciousness
( )( ) = vertical bisection/cross section of a torus, which torus has postive and negative geodesically curved space.
( ( ) ) = horizontal { birds-eye-view } bisection/cross section of a torus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Observed Time aka reality is commonly associated with a sine-wave topology ex /\/\/\/\/\/ or as^v^v^v and defined by diametricallu opposed inversions { >< } from peaks of positive ( ) and negative )( geodesic curvature of a torus ( )( ) ergo the texticonic representation as (><)(><).
Occupied space Universe / Uni-V-erse is composed of fermions and bosons that are each defined by two or more tori interfering with each other. The sum-total of all interfering tori is occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the above coincide with my discovery of all prime numbers ---except 2 and 3--- falling on a single line/level within a sequential numerical set as it occurs of four lines/levels ergo a quasi-2D pattern that in-of-itself defines a sine-wave topology, before it is inside-outed.
This latter above also translate to a 2D hexagonal pattern of 6 radii wherein all prime numbers ---except 2 and 3-- fall only two of the 6 radii.
Regular numerical pattern
0...............................................6............................................12.................................................18...........................
........1...............................5P.............7P..........................11P...........13...............................17P...........19P.....................
................2P...............4.............................8............10...............................14..............16.............................20..............
........................3P.............................................9.................................................15..............................................21.....
Inside-outed irregular pattern
..........1......................................5P..............7P...............................11P..............13P....................................17P............................
-
-
0...........................................................6....................................................12...............................................................................
...............................3P......................................................9..........................................................15............................................
-
-
....................2P...................4.....................................8.............10........................................14..............16...............................
The resultant sine-wave topology occurs inside the toroidal tube as the triangularly structural and systemically stable integral set of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc
-->
@keithprosser
Indeed I have not. I assume based on context clues, however, that it is a game with no winner and loser dynamic. I am aware that such games exist which is why I agreed that this thread could be called a game if one so wished. I was only saying that that is not the first thing that comes to mind when one uses the word 'game'.
More importantly, however, you will recall that my original objection in post 57 did not come up as a result of the word "game" but instead as a result of the word "won". I maintain that it was never my intention to 'win' anything, nor to cause anyone else to 'lose'.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have reason to believe that you and the former poster know as secularmerlin are one and the same. My reasons for this are...
Your polite conversational style.
Your general use of language.
Your spelling and grammatical errors.
The relative timing of your arrival and secularmerlin's absence.
The fact that secularmerlin created a thread with this same title on DDO.
This is not a belief of 100% certainty but merely reasons for a belief that I am considering.
-->
@TwoMan
If none of these things were true, would you still believe it to be likely that SM and myself are the same?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, of course not. I would then have no reasons to hold that particular belief. Are you saying that you and secularmerlin are not the same person?If none of these things were true, would you still believe it to be likely that SM and myself are the same?
No, of course not. I would then have no reasons to hold that particular belief.
If some other two people had the same similarities would you say the same is possible of those two?
Are you saying that you and secularmerlin are not the same person?
If I were to say such a thing then I would be speaking the truth. I am not well acquainted with this secularmerlin person of whom you speak, though I have heard the name before.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If some other two people had the same similarities would you say the same is possible of those two?
Yes.
If I were to say such a thing then I would be speaking the truth.
Fair enough. I'll take you at your word.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
In the spirit of this thread, you might ask why I believe you?
The only reasons I can come up with are because it is the charitable thing to do and because I have no reason not to. Obviously the reasons for my previous assumption were merely coincidences.
Believing someone because you haven't been given reason to disbelieve them seems like a flimsy foundation to stand upon but, here we are. How many other beliefs do you suppose are predicated on the fact that there is no reason as of yet to disbelieve? How many are based on coincidental assumptions that have yet to be falsified?
-->
@TwoMan
In the spirit of this thread, you might ask why I believe you?The only reasons I can come up with are because it is the charitable thing to do and because I have no reason not to. Obviously the reasons for my previous assumption were merely coincidences.
I asked you before if, hypothetically, the evidence you presented were not present you would still believe the conclusion to be the case. I did this, however, not because I am in the habit of asking 'why' of each and every little thing, but instead to determine whether those reasons you provided were actually the true reasons.
Take as an example a person that believes that believes in psychic powers. If they say that they have scientific studies that back it up I could say:
"Suppose hypothetically that these scientific results could be explained without psychic powers. I am not saying this is the case, just suppose that it is. Would this, in your eyes, reduce the likelihood that psychic powers are real?"
You may be suprised how often (espescially in the case of the supernatural, but not just in those cases) the answer to this is "No. This would not affect my certainty at all".
This may seem like a silly response, and it is, but it is nevertheless quite a common one. The proper response to it is to say:
"Then that is not the really the reason you believe. There must be some other reason."
How many are based on coincidental assumptions that have yet to be falsified?
Potentially quite a few. This leads to another important point though. If something is unfalsified then ask whether it is falsifiable. Ask whether it is something that could be disprove if it was false. I believe it is true that the person I call father is my father, for example, but I can imagine a number of ways this might be disproved if it was false. If I held a belief that could not possibly be disproved even if it was false, that would be a problem.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If I held a belief that could not possibly be disproved even if it was false, that would be a problem.
And yet billions of people do have religious beliefs that cannot be falsified one way or the other. I prefer to say "I don't know".
-->
@TwoMan
Excellent assessment 2-Man. Rational logical common sense always leads to a conclusion, true or not.I have reason to believe that you and the former poster know as secularmerlin are one and the same. My reasons for this are...
So it seems that you are saying that your moral values are better than other moral values. Is this a correct understanding?Yes, wouldn't a lot of people say so?Certainly, I think most would, and thank you for the clarification. As I said before the term "I believe" is only two words and therefore on its own can mean a great many things.But still we have not begun to look further into this, and I think it would be best if we first clarify one more thing, that is: a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are. Remember that I did not ask you to give me examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, which is what you have done, but instead to briefly explain the general idea underlying your values. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?
Which beliefs? Political? Religious? Be more specific
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
above post
-->
@Vader
But still we have not begun to look further into this, and I think it would be best if we first clarify one more thing, that is: a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are. Remember that I did not ask you to give me examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, which is what you have done, but instead to briefly explain the general idea underlying your values. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?Which beliefs? Political? Religious? Be more specific
It is exceedingly obvious that I did not change the topic you silly person. All of my posts to you were aimed at the same topic, that being the one you chose in post 36. As it is said in the OP I do not wish to choose the topic but I wish instead for others to choose the topic.
You chose the topic of 'moral values', did you not? There is not a single post of mine to you that strayed from that topic. Not one. This is because I said I would let others choose the topic and that is the topic you chose. However, I need you to tell me how you define your moral values because it is impossible for me to speak about something for which I do not have a definition. You have not done this.
"But I defined my moral values in post 38" I hear you protest. But this is not the case, and if it was then I would already have the definition of your moral values. I do not.
Listen closely to this simple concept:
If I asked you to define the word 'shape' would you say to me "Disipulus, a shape is a triangle, rectangle, hexagon, octagon, etc."? Surely you would not be so unkind as to provide me with such a useless definition! Surely you would instead say "A shape is a figure formed by line segments." or some similar definition that would allow me to recognise in the future whether a thing is a shape.
This is, I think, a simple enough idea.
So now I have asked you to define your moral values because that is the topic that you wish to speak of and it is the one you chose. I need a definition if we are to speak on this topic, yet instead of giving me a definition you have given me a list. This does not help me at all. What choice do I have but to ask again for a definition if I ask for one and do not receive one?
But still we have not begun to look further into this, and I think it would be best if we first clarify one more thing, that is: a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are. Remember that I did not ask you to give me examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, which is what you have done, but instead to briefly explain the general idea underlying your values. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?Which beliefs? Political? Religious? Be more specificIt is exceedingly obvious that I did not change the topic you silly person. All of my posts to you were aimed at the same topic, that being the one you chose in post 36. As it is said in the OP I do not wish to choose the topic but I wish instead for others to choose the topic.You chose the topic of 'moral values', did you not? There is not a single post of mine to you that strayed from that topic. Not one. This is because I said I would let others choose the topic and that is the topic you chose. However, I need you to tell me how you define your moral values because it is impossible for me to speak about something for which I do not have a definition. You have not done this."But I defined my moral values in post 38" I hear you protest. But this is not the case, and if it was then I would already have the definition of your moral values. I do not.Listen closely to this simple concept:If I asked you to define the word 'shape' would you say to me "Disipulus, a shape is a triangle, rectangle, hexagon, octagon, etc."? Surely you would not be so unkind as to provide me with such a useless definition! Surely you would instead say "A shape is a figure formed by line segments." or some similar definition that would allow me to recognise in the future whether a thing is a shape.This is, I think, a simple enough idea.So now I have asked you to define your moral values because that is the topic that you wish to speak of and it is the one you chose. I need a definition if we are to speak on this topic, yet instead of giving me a definition you have given me a list. This does not help me at all. What choice do I have but to ask again for a definition if I ask for one and do not receive one?
I believe in the moral concept I believe the most for a certain ideology. I believe strongly in my religion, and it influences me, while I also believe in lassiez fair, which is my conservatism in me
Ii guess you can say I am a Orthodox Conservative
-->
@Vader
So lassiez fair is a moral theory now?
Perhaps it would be easiest if you just gave me a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are, assuming that moral values are the topic you wish to speak of.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think you can ask someone to define 'moral values' or to list 'their moral values'. I am not sure you can as someone to define 'their moral values'.
You wont find an entry for 'supadudz's moral values' in the oxford dictionary!
-->
@keithprosser
I would agree that a person can hold multiple moral values, I would disagree that such things cannot be defined in simplified terms. The dictionary cannot define Supas moral values, but I think Supa can.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Define 'define'!
-->
@keithprosser
In this context when I say define I mean "to provide a brief and generalized description of"
As one possible example a doctor that uses the Hippocratic oath as their moral basis might be asked to define their moral values. In response they might recite the oath itself (which is well over 300 words long) or they may give the following brief summary: "It is wrong to intentionally cause or allow harm of any kind to anyone under my care"
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I believe that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.
-->
@secularmerlin
If everybody keeps picking the same thing and just changing the wording this will be a very boring thread indeed.
Besides, how do I know that you aren't me?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Im sorry but certainty about almost anything may be beyond human epistemology. Was there some particular kind of beliefs you wish to discuss? What do you believe?
Im sorry but certainty about almost anything may be beyond human epistemology.
I am willing to speak about whether something exists rather than nothing as a quick skim of this thread will attest. I don't think that particular topic is "beyond epistemology' at all, but it has already been brought up and abruptly dropped a few times in this thread. It is repetitiveness that I find boring, not that topic itself.
Was there some particular kind of beliefs you wish to discuss?
Just anything but that, and as I said not because I find the topic itself boring but instead because I find repetitiveness boring.
What do you believe?
Sure, I would even be willing to take the position of the interviewed rather than the interviewer if you wish.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ok then how about this.
I do not believe that beliefs are a choice.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why do you believe this?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because my observations leave me no choice but to believe.
-->
@secularmerlin
That is incredibly vague. Are you referencing a particular set of observations or are you saying that the very fact that you can make observations at all has led to this conclusion in some way?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It's quite simple really. Beliefs are a direct result of our observations colored by our personal bias. Since we neither choose what exists to be observed nor the bias we accrue durring our formative years our beliefs are the direct result of factors beyond our control. This being the case saying that beliefs are a choice is a nonsequiter at best and completely nonsensical at worst.