Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 1:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 1:24 pm If you want to argue that the grammatical permutations have different connotations that's fine. But it's not what I asked you about. I expect you to not be an ass and avoid questions. There's no way I'd put up with that if we were talking in person.

Yes, avoid the actual issue, another thing they might teach in academia. Make cheap shots and claim that the other one is an ass.
It's difficult to bend "reason" to your usage of "logic", and even more difficult to bend "reasonable thinking" to it. Also, having the same root isn't quite the same as a grammatical permutation.

So do the terms have the same root word?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 2:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 1:40 pm
Yes, avoid the actual issue, another thing they might teach in academia. Make cheap shots and claim that the other one is an ass.
It's difficult to bend "reason" to your usage of "logic", and even more difficult to bend "reasonable thinking" to it. Also, having the same root isn't quite the same as a grammatical permutation.

So do the terms have the same root word?

Yes, also the sky is blue, and it's 2020, before you ask.

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 2:11 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 2:01 pm

So do the terms have the same root word?

Yes, also the sky is blue, and it's 2020, before you ask.

Thanks for finally answering.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 2:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 2:11 pm
Yes, also the sky is blue, and it's 2020, before you ask.

Thanks for finally answering.

No problem, happy to spell out the obvious.

Wossname wrote:My prejudice arises because of Bluebell. Bluebell is a red dragon who likes to eat baked beans and drink beer. She often wears a tutu, and on every second Tuesday she likes to stand in a tub of warm custard and sing “God save the queen” in a Chinese accent to her pet halibut which Bluebell calls fluffy but which actually answers to the name whywon’tyoufortheloveofallthat’sholyshutupGeorge II. It is hard to tell if whywon’tyoufortheloveofallthat’sholyshutupGeorge II is impressed by Bluebell’s performances. He is outwardly sanguine. But Bluebell does have quite a nice soprano, and she is generally well liked apart from her occasional bouts of disturbingly violent flatulence (beans and beer being a somewhat unfortunate mix). Bluebell is politically left wing and viewed with suspicion by her next door neighbour, a blue dragon called Adolf, but then he has a grating tenor and couldn’t hold a note if it was glued to his hand.

I don’t actually believe Bluebell exists. That would be silly. But I fear that somewhere there is a fervent eyed mathematician who is willing to tell me that, in an infinite universe, Bluebell does exist. She must exist. Worse still, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of Bluebells. Even worse still, I must accept that in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of mathematicians regaling me with terrible claims about my poor Bluebell which can be of infinite variety and many of which are unrepeatable in polite company. That’s mathematicians for you.

I suppose I ought to be entranced by the thought of an infinite number of Bluebell’s. But I am not. I am grumpy. I should tell any mathematician making such claims to my disbelieving face to shove their abacus and fanciful, ridiculous and sometimes obscene claims about Bluebell up their backside (fanciful or not). I might do this at considerable volume. And then I would probably sulk.

But I can’t help but think this would show the tiniest smidgeon of a lack of grace on my part. I am not attracted to this vision of a universe in which there are infinite numbers of me sulking gracelessly.

And just maybe…….

I only just saw this. Very good. A good example of the fun you can have if you start to imagine an infinite Universe with an infinite amount of stuff in it. Similar to the infinite number of monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times that gets discussed around here from time to time.

I like to think that in an infinite Universe there are an infinite number of planets made entirely from Lego_TM.

What are you guys talking about. The WHOLE POINT of philosophy is about calculating relative probabilities within the infinite world. How else are you going to solve the mistery of existence.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am

creation wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 9:27 pm

The Universe, Itself, makes perfect sense to me.

What the Universe is, is simply very rational, and how the Universe works, is logically very simply.

Life, and living, is very simple and easy indeed. Only human beings make living appear complicated and hard.

Humans bear the heavy burden of understanding. They can form desires beyond their capacity, beyond the limits imposed by reality. They can imagine things in perfect forms, but are imprisoned in an imperfect wold. They wish for their lives to have meaning, but they can see that they do not. They want to live forever, but they know they will die. They can communicate, yet never completely share their subjective experience. They wish for freedom, yet fear the responsibility that comes with it.

That is one way to look at human being generally.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am The world is perhaps simple and makes sense if you are a goldfish.

I must be a goldfish then.

Maybe if you listed some of what you perceive is complex and does not make sense, then I, a goldfish, would know what you are referring to exactly?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am You would not see your own capacity to change things, or how the world might somehow be different and therefore better for you, or more just.

Depending on what exactly it is that you refer to as the 'world', to me, Life is just. Only human beings make Life and living appear unjust.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am But, the world simply does not make sense, is not logical, from a human perspective.

Once again, then, to you, I must be a goldfish.

If the Universe and Life makes perfect sense to me, a "goldfish", then, to you, I am not looking and seeing this from a human perspective, correct?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am You might work to accept things as they are, and this will no doubt benefit your peace of mind. But, it does not come naturally, and it is not easy.

But everything in Life is easy. Only some human beings just make some things appear hard.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am Contrary to this attitude, many people put a lot more effort into escaping, avoiding or denying reality than accepting it. They see things the way they are, and they don't like things the way they are, but they can't change them. So they are reduced to trying to fool themselves into thinking things are better than they are.

Is that what you do? Or, do you like to just look at other human beings and what they do, and/or just look at human beings generally, instead of saying what your own person views are?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am

creation wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 9:27 pm

Just because free will AND determinism play an equal part in Life and living, this does not at all mean there are irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas. (Unless of course you can show otherwise). If any examples are provided, then we can look at them, and then discuss them to see if there is actually any irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas, or not.

Every waking moment is choice for us; it is the essence of being human. In each moment, with every action, there is a true dichotomy. Either you could have acted differently of your own accord, as an agent, or your 'choice' was fully determined by the events that came before. These two options are irreconcilable by definition, and, in the words of Bertrand Russel, saying otherwise like calling a man a married bachelor. Determinism is a theory which says that there is no free will, period. It is not a matter of noting the possible weight of influence of past events on your decisions, but ceding total control to them, effectively eliminating the agent, the soul or any possibility of free will.

Sounds like you know for absolutely sure what is actual true, right, and correct here. So, for me, to say absolutely anything else would just fall on deaf ears, correct?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am I don't think you really need me to work this out for you. If I am an independent agent, if my will is free, then for any choice, I could have chosen otherwise under identical circumstances. At that exact moment in time that I could have decided differently. If determinism is true, then only the effects of the causes of the past were responsible for my decision, There was no chance that I would have taken another path at that moment.

And, as exactly as I said both play an equal part. But did I really need to have worked this out for you and/or have to show how this is actually the case?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am The burden is squarely on you to show that these two mutually exclusive ideas can both be true.

Very easily and simply done, to those who do not believe otherwise that is.

You are absolutely free to choose absolutely anything you want to. But your list, to choose from, was formed by, and is limited by, your past limited experiences.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am I've never seen so much as a theory of how they could be so,

There are a lot of things you have yet to see and encounter.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:19 am but only people who call themselves 'compatibilists' without explaining how their position could be right, much less how it must be.

At the moment, I am only just a "goldfish" and would NEVER call myself a 'compatibilist' nor absolutely any other thing that what 'I' truly am.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:29 am

creation wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 9:51 pm

Well that certainly does not make sense to me.

I exist now and I never had a need to get to point Tn.

What is Tn to you exactly?

Ah--I guess that you didn't know what Tn referred to? "T" is conventionally used to denote time. "n" is conventionally used to denote an integer variable. We usually talk about time as T1, T2, etc., with the convention that T2 is a later time than T1. Tn would be any arbitrary later time. So maybe T579 or T1,000,000,000 or whatever.

Who is the 'we' that usually talk about time as T1, T2, etc?

Since only NOW is constant forever, then Tn is just the now, which is a moment later than previous moments.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:29 am If time extends back infinitely, then in order to get to T-whatever, we need to pass through an infinity of previous times. But you can never get through an infinity, because there's no end to it. There's always an infinity to go through before you arrive at any particular point, and you can't complete an infinity.

Yes, this is how I see infinity also.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 6:29 am So any arbitrary later time would be impossible to arrive at. It's basically a Zenoan paradox--one that extends "infinitely backwards."

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Since 'time' is just a word that describes a measurement taken and 'time' is in thought only, then there is not any issue here at all. In fact, what you are saying further supports the views I am expressing here.

By the way, those so called "paradoxes" are easily and simply explained.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:34 pm
Since 'time' is just a word that describes a measurement taken

A measurement of what?

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:12 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:35 am How would you define what logic is?

Logic is a process of proving relationships to be inevitable, such that if a certain proposition is true, then certain conclusions must be taken to be true as a natural and undeniable result.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:59 am "Makes sense" is a crass misunderstanding of what the point of logic was. Logic has always been about the implicational relationships of propositions.

Yes, but logic always does make sense, if one understands the beginning proposition and the conclusions that follow and the way in which they are related. Assuming I accept the beginning proposition to be true, and I understand everything you present, and it is really logic, then how could it not make sense? At least, the relationships, the logic itself, should make sense. The fact that reality is what it is doesn't have to make sense, and often doesn't.

What in 'reality' does not make sense, to you? (Only when these things are brought out to be looked at, then only then can we see why they do not make sense to some people).

Also, I have noticed a lot of these threads start of with a topic heading but what ends up being discussed in particular words themselves, and their meanings, which as can be obviously noticed and seen, there are very many varied different meanings for words. If anyone wanted to express what the word 'reality' meant, and show how 'reality' is what it is, and how 'reality' often does not make sense, then we could also go on for pages disagreeing.

My point is once human beings work out what words they want to use in a discussion, and work out what the accepted and agreed upon definition and meanings of those words will be, before they have the actual discussion/s, then topics like this one, for example; If the Universe is endless and infinite or not, would not go on for another few thousands or so years without still not being resolved. This applies for all the other topics of unresolved discussions, which have also been going on for hundreds or for thousands of years now.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:51 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:34 pm
Since 'time' is just a word that describes a measurement taken

A measurement of what?

As I have said previously, the duration between agreed upon apparent events.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:51 pm

A measurement of what?

As I have said previously, the duration between agreed upon apparent events.

What is the duration? In other words, what are we looking at for duration?

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:25 am Besides propositions and conclusions etc. tend to have an inherently linear structure. So they are incompatible with the probably inherently circular nature of reality. Thinking about logic in only linear terms is a huge problem imo.

But the circular nature of reality can be very simply and very easily explained in a linear structure.

The Universe is eternal and infinite.
There is no beginning and there was no end.
Looking as far as can been seen forwards or backwards temporally or in any direction spatially you will always come back to the HERE-NOW.
There is only HERE-NOW in constant-change.
HERE-NOW is the beginning and the end.
The end of the past and the beginning of the future.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:55 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:54 pm

As I have said previously, the duration between agreed upon apparent events.

What is the duration?

The duration is the length of change in an event.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:55 pm In other words, what are we looking at for duration?

The human devised, invented, and created contraption generally known in english as a "clock", which is the human made tool used for measuring duration.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:55 pm

What is the duration?

The duration is the length of change in an event.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:55 pm In other words, what are we looking at for duration?

The human devised, invented, and created contraption generally known in english as a "clock", which is the human made tool used for measuring duration.

Sure. So on your view, prior to inventing clocks of some sort, or at least prior to humans, there was no duration?