-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, it matters. If you acknowledge evidence from just five senses, you're unnecessarily limiting potential knowledge of truth.
Zoiks.
TeacherOfPhilosophy
Posts
Total:
133
-->
@3RU7AL
3RU...Can you say for certain that "quantum foam" is "created" or even "new"? Or is it perhaps simply "redistributed"?
Sorry 3RU, I accidentally left out the word we have 'not' ever observed creation from where before there was truly nothing.
I understand how it is easy to forget how adamant Ive been about this point. Again, sorry for my leaving out of the word 'not'.
1} 1st law is all that has been observed, and I would take that further to be more refined statement to say that, ...occupied space is not ever created nor destroyed, only transformed.
.......ergo #3} in my Cosmic Trinity Outline ...eternally existent and finite, occupied space Universe......
2} Fuller points out that Universe is finite, but via multiplication-by-division Fuller remains to the open the idea, that, we do have micro-infinite subdivision of macro-finite Universe.
I disagree with this, but do see geometrically how it appears rational, logical common sense conclusion, unless we places with occupied space Universe, where at times truly non-occupied space exists for whatever degree of time and size.
Think of this way. Between the occupied space proton and electron there an occupied space field. Well just how micro-infinitly does the proton, electron and field exist?
See what I mean? Can we ever arrive at some micro-scale of size where the quanta as matter or bosonic field, does not exist?
-->
@ebuc
we do have micro-infinite subdivision of macro-finite Universe.
Yeah, I tend to side with Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck on this one.
-->
@3RU7AL
prevent "geocentrism" style mistakes
wrong question. Is there inherent prevention in any definition of any word? No.
Zoiks.
If that is intended as an expression of surprise, it fails to leave an impression. Do you deny that we may have more senses at our disposal than five?
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, I tend to side with Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck on this one.
Sorry 3RU, you being vague and mystical ergo meaningless i.e. I have no idea what you are actually intending to communicate, in regards to anything Ive stated in last post.
No one has ever, or ever will, offer any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my Cosmic Trinity Outline as presented and evolved over last 15 years.
...note: my Cosmic Trinity Outline does not address the issue of micro-infinite subdivision of Universe.......,
I think you may have made some brief attempt to invalidate some part of my Cosmic Trinity Outline. I forget details of what you stated then. Just seem to recall it was not correct whatever it was stated.
Fuller express his micro-infinite subdivision of Universe in greater context, that I dont have link to at this time. He also uses it to explain we observe and which is to occur regarding Univese where seemingly, spacetime galaxies are all --for the most part-- expanding away from each other simultaneously.
He goes on to state, that, one way that is possible is each of the galaxies, were going away from each other, but only if each is expanding away from each other at greater speeds their rate of travel. This why most rational, logical scientist types went to more 3D, rasin bread expanding Universe expression ---where each rasin is a galaxy-- instead of the older 2D balloon surface expression.
When I was in 6th grade, we have differrent volley ball teams, and the types of names we chose were galaxies, metors, suns, etc and the team I was on was called the Comets. I did not like roller coasters around this time, as they were too scary for me, but there was one, relatively speaking, easy going roller coaster ride I would go on, and it was called The Comet.
-->
@Reece101
Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.
You're still playing the semantics game.
Facts are facts for sure.
But where does the necessity of proof occur?...And what flippantly attributes facts with the quality of existence?
-->
@zedvictor4
Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.You're still playing the semantics game.Facts are facts for sure.
It wasn’t a semantics game. It was in contrast with Fauxlaw’s belief that “unknowns must also apply.”
But it seems you want to play though.
But where does the necessity of proof occur?
In everyday life. It’s a product of evolution.
...And what flippantly attributes facts with the quality of existence?
To claim truth when the evidence is weak.
-->
@zedvictor4
Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.
How do you personally distinguish a FACT from a LIE?
-->
@ebuc
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you deny that we may have more senses at our disposal than five?
Are you including "proprioception" and "logic"?
-->
@fauxlaw
prevent "geocentrism" style mistakeswrong question. Is there inherent prevention in any definition of any word? No.
The only reason to define a word is to prevent misunderstanding.
If you can't explain how "geocentrism" DOES NOT qualify as a "FACT" (based on your personally preferred definition) THEN your claim carries no weight.
-->
@3RU7AL
Refer to Galileo
-->
@3RU7AL
i had not necessarily included them, but, why not? All I'm saying is that limiting our perception of reality to 5 senses is nonsense.
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you personally distinguish a FACT from a LIE?
Notwithstanding that fact and lie are not synonymous. I assume that what you are asking is how do I decide if data presented as factual, is so, or if it is bogus.
And the answer would be...If I feel that I cannot accept data at face value, I would have to verify utilising a reputable reference source.
Bogus data is not necessarily presented as a deliberate untruth.
Nonetheless, what was the purpose behind your question?
-->
@zedvictor4
If I feel that I cannot accept data at face value, I would have to verify utilising a reputable reference source.
How do you determine if a reference source is reputable?
-->
@fauxlaw
i had not necessarily included them, but, why not? All I'm saying is that limiting our perception of reality to 5 senses is nonsense.
Please explain what you consider a valid "sense" (that can be used to validate data).
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, that's the question I was expecting.
It simply boils down to trust I suppose....Sometimes we just have to have trust in things....Otherwise, how would we ever get anything done.
Sometimes philosophy can be stagnating.
-->
@zedvictor4
It simply boils down to trust I suppose...
If you can't validate a source, then you can't determine if their story is factual.
The BEST you can possibly say is, "it seems likely to me personally".
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll give you one I know you to which youi have opposition, but I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt. Faith.
-->
@3RU7AL
epistemological limits.
What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known. Known by all senses available to us, and not just five [that's self-limiting, you know. What purpose has knowledge if wer cannot eventually know all of it, which is endless, but so can we be endless. No limits, my friend. Try it.
epistemological limits.
What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known. Known by all senses available to us, and not just five [that's self-limiting, you know. What purpose has knowledge if we cannot eventually know all of it, which is endless, but so can we be endless. No limits, my friend. Try it.
-->
@fauxlaw
I'll give you one I know you to which youi have opposition, but I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt. Faith.
FAITH is not a "sense".
FAITH is a simple matter of pretending a HYPOTHESIS is an AXIOM (treating a "premise" as FACT).
-->
@fauxlaw
What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known.
THE PHANERON.
-->
@3RU7AL
FAITH is not a "sense".
I reject you supposed definition. I'll offer you one from the only English dictionary I'll trust; the OED, unabridged: "the capacity to spiritually apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof, viewed either as a faculty of the human soul, or as the result of divine illumination."
I'll repeat, because it is critical: I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt.
-->
@3RU7AL
THE PHANERON.
from Greek φανερός phaneros "visible, showable". In other words, not even using the other alleged limit of four senses. Key word: LIMITED. And that's supposed to lead to knowledge in it complete form? I'll engage my laugh machine.
So, argue for your limitations; they'er yours.
-->
@fauxlaw
"the capacity to spiritually apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof, viewed either as a faculty of the human soul, or as the result of divine illumination."
You're describing GNOSIS.
-->
@fauxlaw
So, argue for your limitations; they'er yours.
I guess I'm lucky to have the honor of speaking to the only OMNISCIENT HUMAN ON EARTH.
-->
@zedvictor4
It simply boils down to trust I suppose....Sometimes we just have to have trust in things....
What if your "trusted experts" give you contradictory "answers"? - [LINK]
Otherwise, how would we ever get anything done.
100% confidence is not prerequisite to action.
A general in the fog-of-war is not paralyzed.
You simply gather the best reconnaissance available and make the best plan of attack based on your experience.
-->
@fauxlaw
...beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof,
Don't be a LOGICZOMBIE!!!
A logiczombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.
A logiczombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.
For example, you can't just blindly follow logic into idiotic beliefs like determinism and solipsism. These are obviously intellectual black holes with no utilitarian value whatsoever.
A logiczombie is just a person who can't face reality and who won't be honest with themselves.
A logiczombie is someone who never takes personal responsibility for their actions and instead blames logic for their moronic and misguided attacks on well established and incontrovertible truth.
You can't depend on logic for everything. People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts.
-->
@3RU7AL
Gnosis
semantics is little more than premature efactulation
OMNISCIENT HUMAN ON EARTH.
hardly. just been around the block a few more tours than you have. Not omniscient, just observant.
logiczombie
I'd say a logiczombie is mostly repetitious, expecting different results.
Nope, I apply faith and logic in equal doses; and they are clearly not the same thing. It's just that you're hung-up on an invalid expectation of what faith is, and clearly have no inclination to find out what it really is. It is so far from being belief in a rut which is your interpretation