I am the lord of the wind...
...that tells me a lot, "fallibilism". Do I even want to know what your theories are as to what the real world looks like (assuming that the faux world is the one you just described)?
-Albatross
-Albatross
No, I just don't assume that what I "know" is actaully real. For example I "know" that you exist; but I don't know that you exist.
| Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. |
I know what fallibilism is. However, I thought you would have had at least a guess as to what is not mistaken. Seeing as you do not, I won't press for you to think of any hypotheses (which would be difficult, considering the alarming lack of information one might have to use).
-Albatross
-Albatross
Last edited on
But there are some absolute truths. For example, "pi=p/r" is true no matter what (mostly because it's a tautology). If that makes sense to you, then the only way it could be false is if your wetware is buggy, but that's a point of no return. If your doubt goes that far, you may as well doubt your doubt.
Regardless of whether it's true; I don't know it is for certain.
Using your example, pi = p / r. You can say "it's been proven that pi = p / r". But has the method used to prove it been proven? And what about the method used to prove that (ad infinitum)?
Also, not that long ago (in the context of a 200,000 year old species) everyone "knew" the world was flat. Right now, we "know" the world is round. Who's to say that in a few hundred years we won't "know" that the world is some other arbitrary shape. Another example is "germ theory". Before that was miasma theory -- everyone knew that bad smells caused disease. Right now, everyone knows that microorganisms cause disease. I think they do, but can't be sure.
Using your example, pi = p / r. You can say "it's been proven that pi = p / r". But has the method used to prove it been proven? And what about the method used to prove that (ad infinitum)?
Also, not that long ago (in the context of a 200,000 year old species) everyone "knew" the world was flat. Right now, we "know" the world is round. Who's to say that in a few hundred years we won't "know" that the world is some other arbitrary shape. Another example is "germ theory". Before that was miasma theory -- everyone knew that bad smells caused disease. Right now, everyone knows that microorganisms cause disease. I think they do, but can't be sure.
| You can say "it's been proven that pi = p / r". |
| in the context of a 200,000 year old species |
You don't need to go to such scales. A very simple example is "I think I have a body, but I can't prove I do". That's what I like about consensus reality. Okay, I can't prove I have a body, but everyone treats me like I do, and it behaves with itself as though it does, and I have no other source of data, so I'll just have to assume that I do. When I was much younger, I used to wonder (in simpler terms) "how do I know that the sensory input I receive is correct?" The best answer I could ever find was "because its self-consistent".
Last edited on
Damn. You replied faster than I was expecting.
Yes. Pi is defined as the ratio of etc. It's true because it's defined to be true (i.e. because we say so). pi=pi is also true because it's an axiom.
| Or is it? |
| m4ster r0shi wrote: |
|---|
| the only thing it could make you out of is... itself. So, you're that powerful entity but you make the instance of yourself known as QWERTYman feel that it is separate from all other existence. |
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Fallacy of division detected. |
But QWERTYman is not part of that higher entity, he is that higher entity ;)
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| When I was much younger, I used to wonder (in simpler terms) "how do I know that the sensory input I receive is correct?" The best answer I could ever find was "because its self-consistent". |
I'm glad you noticed! So, we have something "happening" and something you experience. And what you experience is the "projection" of what's happening through the sensory organs of your body. The problem has always been "how can I tell what's happening, using what I experience as data?". This by nature is a difficult problem. Take a shape on the x-y plane for example. It could be the projection of many different x-y-z objects. So which one did it actually came from?...
That's also what physicists do when making a theory. They take the various experiments' data, which would be the projection of what's happening, and try to imagine what could cause that. But, you see, no matter how many experiments you make, no matter how big and self-consistent your theory is, you can never say that it's the absolute truth. There always is the chance that something else is happening that just happens to have the same projection with what you think it's happening.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Regardless of whether it's true; I don't know it is for certain. |
I agree.
Last edited on
| But QWERTYman is not part of that higher entity, he is that higher entity |
| that something is so powerful and endless to the point that it encompasses all existence |
| you make the instance of yourself known as QWERTYman feel that it is separate from all other existence. |
If all that exists is the higher entity and there are things that can be said to be other than QWERTYman, then QWERTYman must be a strict subset of the entity.
Finally,
| And what do you think that powerful something made you out of? If that something is so powerful and endless to the point that it encompasses all existence... Then the only thing it could make you out of is... itself. |
Last edited on
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| It could make more existence out of itself in such a way that it is external to itself, and then make him out of that. Kind of like bootstrapping. Why assume that something so powerful would be so arbitrarily constrained? |
That's what I'm saying. Why would it be strange then that QWERTYman is both part of that entity and the entity itself?
EDIT: Though, I was looking forward for you to comment on the other parts of my previous post...
Last edited on
Because it's illogical. If you start to consider illogical theories then it's no longer possible to theorize because literally anything could be considered. Maybe QWERTYman really is a fly inside my eye having an LSD trip about himself having an LSD trip (...), and that simulates a chocolate bar on a table that's the state of the universe once it reaches infinite entropy, and this discussion we're having now really will happen last Thursday because time is shaped like love.
EDIT: I have no comment on that. If I didn't agree, I would have said so.
EDIT: I have no comment on that. If I didn't agree, I would have said so.
Last edited on
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Maybe QWERTYman really is a fly inside my eye having an LSD trip about himself having an LSD trip (...), and that simulates a chocolate bar on a table that's the state of the universe once it reaches infinite entropy, and this discussion we're having now really will happen last Thursday because time is shaped like love. |
That's fine by me :D
Last edited on
Sorry to revive a ten day old thread but it's an interesting topic.
I've been reading about Nihilism and Absurdism recently. I'm currently readin/trying to read an English translation of Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) by Friedrich Nietzsche.
It's difficult because the whole (68 page) book is in some archaic language that's incredibly hard to decipher.
Here's an excerpt:
I've been reading about Nihilism and Absurdism recently. I'm currently readin/trying to read an English translation of Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) by Friedrich Nietzsche.
It's difficult because the whole (68 page) book is in some archaic language that's incredibly hard to decipher.
Here's an excerpt:
| Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: |
|---|
| Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest! For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent. But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it. Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. |
Mmmmm... stars... Right, I have something relevant.
| Look at the stars, how beautiful they are. They say no word. They do not hush man; they do not condemn man. They do not placate man; they do not evoke man. They do none of these things but express perfectly. How powerful they are. How beautiful it is to look unto something that you can behold its beauty without a blush or shyness and will always be remarkably there to remind you, perhaps in some forgotten memory of your ancientness and your power, how infinitely small you think you can be... Man wishes to ascend amongst the stars, and for what reason? To leave all the murk and the mire and the rabble in the marketplace, and the condemnation, and all the smallness that he has been made to feel behind. Who knows you are God? Who cares? Who knows you are Christ? Do they really care? Is it worth being the standard that you are? Can you be so luminously beautiful as the great jewel and yet not overshadow the smaller ones who also have their light or even become so great that the Void is dismissed and none are individual? Who cares? The man who gazes at them cares... |
E = mc²
Energy has a relation with mass. A bit more specific: physical objects can be instantiated from energy. Since energy isn't really a solid "object", I think it's fair to say that things CAN be created out of "nothing". The only question that remains is.. what came first, the particle or the energy (and why)?
Energy has a relation with mass. A bit more specific: physical objects can be instantiated from energy. Since energy isn't really a solid "object", I think it's fair to say that things CAN be created out of "nothing". The only question that remains is.. what came first, the particle or the energy (and why)?
Thought is the ultimate creator. Energy is coagulated thought, much like mass is coagulated energy.
| How does one atom know to connect and share electrons with another atom? How do they know that? In other words, what is the intelligence behind an atom? [...] Remember, energy — energy, like this — energy is consciousness in motion. It is in motion. So even if we have energy, we have an inextricably riding field called consciousness. So every atom and every part of the atom, all the way to its orbit, has a mind. So every atomic structure has a mind. [...] So look at how he [Yeshua ben Joseph] saw life, will you. He knew that however he saw anything is exactly how he agreed for it to be. Are you with me? [...] If he walked into a group of people and he is teaching them and then he stops to feed them — listen to me — and he has only a basket of fishes and a loaf of bread and he has five thousand people, what would your mind say? Let’s run to the market straightaway; correct? But this was a master who understood the relationship between mind and matter and all he had to do was to change his mind on what he saw. And so the fish and the bread became the seed that multiplied in his mind. And as long as he saw it, the supply was endless. Are you with me? Now where did the supply come from? The supply came from one fish and one loaf of bread, and all he needed to do was to make them multitudinous. So what he did is he kept creating echoes of the fish and the bread, and he was taking energy that was falling apart and recoagulating it, giving them a frame of reference to coagulate into. [...] Now Yeshua ben Joseph was considered a master all the way up to the sixth level. He was only a master; he was never a Christ. And his job, as difficult as it was, was to defy reality with his mind. Look, if I am telling you today that what you think affects all life around you, then if you stop for a moment and reflect, you will see how your life has stayed static according to your image thoughts. [...] You accept your ill health, you accept your problems, you accept your limitations, and because you accept them you freeze them and lock then that energy into a relationship. That is what you do every day. You are a God. You are doing that. [...] If that is true and you have the power, imagine what an initiation it was for such a being, and beings, that every day they had to defy physical reality and overlay with a mind so powerful that they could see what was not there and make it that. Powerful, eh? [...] Imagine what it would be to get up every morning and defy reality, to start changing what has been normal to you to be supernormal every day. So the first day you get up and a few things change but not everything. Is that enough to go back and accept mundane reality? Or is it that we are having to create a mind that is so powerful that it can acquiesce the energy field of any lifeform and any situation and change it immediately. What does that take? Constant focus on what is expected rather than what is seen. |
| Since energy isn't really a solid "object", I think it's fair to say that things CAN be created out of "nothing". |