NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone have any interesting philosophy of their own to share?

On time and God: If there is a god, and if that god is omniscient, then absolutely everything exists. It all exists at the same time. So every single change in anything would be apart of it's own parallel universe, because time can't flow if what is there is already there and decided, since time is dependent on change to even be measured. The only way then everything could exist is to be layed out into an infinite series of universes. This is theorhetically impossible since every single thing that can be measured could be infinitely broken down into smaller changes and time periods. This would create the paradox of something that is finite being formed only by an infinite series. (e.g., how .999 repeated can equal 1) That is why an omniscient diety could not exist with time.

On consciousness/sentience: If something cannot be known, it may as well not exist. If a book is left where no one will ever read it, the book doesn't exist. The paper and ink exist, but the book itself does not, because it means nothing if no one knows about it. In the same way, the existence of the universe is reliant on sentience. Therefore, the "beginning" of anything would be when the first consciouss mind could observe it. Consciousnesses are their own reality, and have the power to change it. But we have been taught and educated by other consciousnesses, and have had their reality taught to us, so that is why even though we are our own reality we do not have the ability to alter some of the most commonly accepted laws of physics, because it is so far pushed into our minds that we are not now strong enough to override the instinct to believe in it. Absolute truth will only exist when there is one being left, and if that consciousness ceases to exist, so will everything until a new consciousness is spawned, and the timeframe between those events will be nonexistant since no one was there to measure it. Therefore, consciousnesses are eternal, and there will always be sentience.

On LSD...er NSG: Sincere polite philosophical discussion threads rarely reach 5 pages.

On Knowledge: Nothing can ever be known for certain, in all cases. Something like...well, some philosopher's notion of 'Radical Doubt'.

I don't like philosophy. I like philosophizing while inebriated. It becomes a lot more interesting then.

I think time occurs in a circle rather than a line. Either that, or time doesn't exist chronologically but all times occur simultaneously. The reason I think either of these might be true is because sometimes things happen and have a sort of gravitas, or inertia, and I get to deja-vu-ing or sometimes will have prophetic dreams and stuff like that.

I don't like philosophy. I like philosophizing while inebriated. It becomes a lot more interesting then.

I think time occurs in a circle rather than a line. Either that, or time doesn't exist chronologically but all times occur simultaneously. The reason I think either of these might be true is because sometimes things happen and have a sort of gravitas, or inertia, and I get to deja-vu-ing or sometimes will have prophetic dreams and stuff like that.

Shizzle like that happens to me all the time.
I have begun wondering if I am some sort of prophet-matrix-time-traveling-hero, or just have such a dull and monotonous life that everything seems the same or reminds me of something that happened the day before..or the day after tomorrow...*yawn*

I don't like philosophy. I like philosophizing while inebriated. It becomes a lot more interesting then.

I think time occurs in a circle rather than a line. Either that, or time doesn't exist chronologically but all times occur simultaneously. The reason I think either of these might be true is because sometimes things happen and have a sort of gravitas, or inertia, and I get to deja-vu-ing or sometimes will have prophetic dreams and stuff like that.

Time can't be a circle unless there is something happening at every part of the circle. Time stops when no one measures it.

The only absolute is nothing. Existence extends out from nothing, so it would also have an opposite. And everything, even concepts need an opposite to prove they exist, because they're absolute value shows how it came from nothing. The material universe must have an immaterium, eternity and reverse eternity occur at the same time. But people would think of it like this:

<-------------------------.----------------------------------------->

But that would only create a line, and would not account for simultaneous existence. Rather, it would look like this:

> (eternity)-------------- < > ----- < (reverse eternity)

And the point where they collide would be when everything is absolute.

Turns out A is actually B.

Turns out A is actually B.

*smacks forehead*

And the answer was in front of me all along...

You mean like the big bang?

I mean that anything that is not seen by a sentient being essentially does not exist. I believe that while it is scientifically useful, in terms of philosophy the Big Bang is meaningless because I believe the beginning starts at the birth of the first sentient being.

Time can't be a circle unless there is something happening at every part of the circle.

You mean like the big bang?

Anyone have any interesting philosophy of their own to share?

On time and God: If there is a god, and if that god is omniscient, then absolutely everything exists. It all exists at the same time. So every single change in anything would be apart of it's own parallel universe, because time can't flow if what is there is already there and decided, since time is dependent on change to even be measured. The only way then everything could exist is to be layed out into an infinite series of universes. This is theorhetically impossible since every single thing that can be measured could be infinitely broken down into smaller changes and time periods. This would create the paradox of something that is finite being formed only by an infinite series. (e.g., how .999 repeated can equal 1) That is why an omniscient diety could not exist with time.

Logical contradictions in reality are of very limited use for proving anything unless you for some damnably odd reason genuinely believe that logic maps accurately onto reality rather than just being a tool for mental organization.

On Knowledge: Nothing can ever be known for certain, in all cases. Something like...well, some philosopher's notion of 'Radical Doubt'.

Do you know this for certain?

Since formulating and debating a philosophical framework of my own creation was the reason I picked up a philosophy major (unfortunately, all I do is write papers about Kant, Cartesian Dualism, the major differences and similarities between Hegel and Schleiermacher and other such annoyingly dull and tedious crap...warning to anyone thinking about picking up a philosophy major :p), I might as well do a little bit of it in a thread. ;)

Time and God? Well, pretty much everything in the universe, especially a "thing's" existence, hinges on change, velocity, momentum, what-have-you. It's all motion, this is why, while it is theoretically possible to attain absolute zero, it's yet to be attained (and may never be so). We also know that, by and large, time is a relational thing. It changes and warps with change in relative velocity, leading me to believe that time is nothing more than a byproduct of motion/change.

God, as an entity that begot the universe and nothing more, seems like a causally necessary thing. However, the idea that such an entity can break the laws of the universe seems silly to me. In an infinite non-space, it isn't ridiculous to believe that all possible entities exist/non-exist, which seems weird but since they would be as Schroedinger's Cat, non-existent, for all intents and purposes, though also existent at the same time.

Sentience? Conscience? We have an odd misapprehension of these things, as human-beings. All they are are adaptive forms of data compilation. Pretty much...Functionalism. It isn't anything special, it's just properly working systems relating to each other in the way that, lucky for us, they do.

Though, honestly, what's more interesting than metaphysics or the philosophy of mind is Ethics and Social Philosophy. It's the only part of philosophy that is useful in the real world. ;)

Sentience is extremely essential. In fact I believe sentience and non-sentience should replace life and nonlife as the 2 most basic categories of matter.

Not physically, but mentally and philisophically, is there really a difference between a bacterium and a star, both which are neither self aware but burn fuel to survive just because they do.

You mean like the big bang?

I'll take care of that.

Since formulating and debating a philosophical framework of my own creation was the reason I picked up a philosophy major (unfortunately, all I do is write papers about Kant, Cartesian Dualism, the major differences and similarities between Hegel and Schleiermacher and other such annoyingly dull and tedious crap...warning to anyone thinking about picking up a philosophy major :p), I might as well do a little bit of it in a thread. ;)

Time and God? Well, pretty much everything in the universe, especially a "thing's" existence, hinges on change, velocity, momentum, what-have-you. It's all motion, this is why, while it is theoretically possible to attain absolute zero, it's yet to be attained (and may never be so). We also know that, by and large, time is a relational thing. It changes and warps with change in relative velocity, leading me to believe that time is nothing more than a byproduct of motion/change.

God, as an entity that begot the universe and nothing more, seems like a causally necessary thing. However, the idea that such an entity can break the laws of the universe seems silly to me. In an infinite non-space, it isn't ridiculous to believe that all possible entities exist/non-exist, which seems weird but since they would be as Schroedinger's Cat, non-existent, for all intents and purposes, though also existent at the same time.

Sentience? Conscience? We have an odd misapprehension of these things, as human-beings. All they are are adaptive forms of data compilation. Pretty much...Functionalism. It isn't anything special, it's just properly working systems relating to each other in the way that, lucky for us, they do.

Though, honestly, what's more interesting than metaphysics or the philosophy of mind is Ethics and Social Philosophy. It's the only part of philosophy that is useful in the real world. ;)

My philosophy is that life is a mistake. If God really exists, he is an idiot. But about time, I think that from any one point there are infinite timelines leading off, like a tree with its branches

Logical contradictions in reality are of very limited use for proving anything unless you for some damnably odd reason genuinely believe that logic maps accurately onto reality rather than just being a tool for mental organization.

I believe truth and logic is the collective knowledge of every sentient being in exist. Nothing is "not there". Everything that exists is there, and everything that does not exist is there, that is the only absolute truth.

Do you know this for certain?

Everything is questionable. Especially abstract concepts like "god" and "time". But things like the basic laws of physics and normacly are already coded into our mind, and our minds are not advanced so far to alter that reality.

So therefore, everything is questionable. Some things just aren't worth questioning because you don't have the capacity to not believe them.

if sumthing does not exist, its not there, since it doesnt exist

I believe truth and logic is the collective knowledge of every sentient being in exist. Nothing is "not there". Everything that exists is there, and everything that does not exist is there, that is the only absolute truth.

So, um, what's this religion of yours called?

I bet that its called Psychotic Craziness

have to go bye

I mean that anything that is not seen by a sentient being essentially does not exist. I believe that while it is scientifically useful, in terms of philosophy the Big Bang is meaningless because I believe the beginning starts at the birth of the first sentient being.

Why would reality's existence depend on sight? Or for that matter, sentience? Isn't that a bit of an egotistical viewpoint, that nothing exists unless human says so?

Do you know this for certain?

Nope. :)

Sentience is extremely essential. In fact I believe sentience and non-sentience should replace life and nonlife as the 2 most basic categories of matter.

Not physically, but mentally and philisophically, is there really a difference between a bacterium and a star, both which are neither self aware but burn fuel to survive just because they do.

They have vastly different adaptive methods and, while both "gather" data in their own ways, the thing about "living entities" that sets them apart from the "non-living" is the former primarily gathers information at a vastly superior rate relative to the latter. However, at a fundamental "stuff" level? No, there is also nothing different between a swirling pool of magma and a human, both are a bunch of sloshed up molecules and atoms interacting in the way that the nature of the universe allows.

Everything is questionable. Especially abstract concepts like "god" and "time". But things like the basic laws of physics and normacly are already coded into our mind, and our minds are not advanced so far to alter that reality.

So therefore, everything is questionable. Some things just aren't worth questioning because you don't have the capacity to not believe them.

Certain things are not questionable...such as contradictions, which are also abstract concepts. A thing is not tall and short, at the same time, this is a contradiction. Nor is something round and square or existent and non-existent, at the same time. So, yes, there is at least one abstract concept that is unquestionable within the realm of our own physical universe.

In the realm of philosophy, how does the new developed and working concept of the sound echo mirror fit. It is now being used in research (still non-human application) to remove tumors with the echo ultra sound, in short the mirrored echo sound is used to remove, while echo sound is used to sustain and strengthen. To me, in my humble opinion it shows that each positive has a negative (or reverse). Is that applicable on all aspects of our existence ?

Kagetora;']if sumthing does not exist, its not there, since it doesnt exist

are we certain of it's non-existence, or have we not yet discovered it ? what do you call it then when you realize the existence of the non-existent ? subdo-existent !

Does the non-existent not exist once you simply identify it as such ?
OR:
Once you identify something then it exists even if it is non-existent !

Something that is not perceived/conceived is not really non-existent. If it exists, it's there whether we can think or not.

If it doesn't exist, then the statement's rather moot right?



My weird thinking:
All possible configurations of the universe exist, even if getting from now to there is impossible by the rules the universe operates by. Since they all exist, the rules determine the "legitimate" paths.

Start from here, and follow these rules (which can be whatever you want) and you'll go there.

Its a simple extension to show that time is a movement down the path.


PS: I just came up with this! Now I can say that my D&D world can exist following different rules... =P

What? Don't look at me like that!

If a tree falls on a deaf person, can anybody hear his screams?

That's all I've got. I've never really understood what philosophy is 'for'...

I think time occurs in a circle rather than a line. Either that, or time doesn't exist chronologically but all times occur simultaneously. The reason I think either of these might be true is because sometimes things happen and have a sort of gravitas, or inertia, and I get to deja-vu-ing or sometimes will have prophetic dreams and stuff like that.

how do you explain the concept of entropy when time occurs in a circle, wouldn't that cause entropy to become smaller? which is impossible (I think, I'm really no expert)

An amount of free will must exist.

Or alternatively: Uncertainty of future is a physical fact.

There are 4 kinds of people...

He who knows not and knows not he knows not: He is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not: He is simple, teach him.
He who knows, but knows not he knows: He is asleep, wake him.
He who knows, and knows he knows: He is wise, follow him.

I mean that anything that is not seen by a sentient being essentially does not exist. I believe that while it is scientifically useful, in terms of philosophy the Big Bang is meaningless because I believe the beginning starts at the birth of the first sentient being.

The blind, deaf paraplegic cannot perceive the speeding train engine until it hits him/her. While we interpret reality through our senses, reality is not limited to that minuscule amount of the universe we can perceive.

There are 4 kinds of people...

He who knows not and knows not he knows not: He is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not: He is simple, teach him.
He who knows, but knows not he knows: He is asleep, wake him.
He who knows, and knows he knows: He is wise, follow him.

A man of knowledge can speak of many thing; but only a wise man knows when to shut up :))

Kagetora;13068418']My philosophy is that life is a mistake. If God really exists, he is an idiot. But about time, I think that from any one point there are infinite timelines leading off, like a tree with its branches

The problem with that is that if a mistake has been made it requires a sentiant being to have made the mistake.

So from your words we can infer that you belive in the existance of a creative God?

You mean like the big bang?
You know, there's no reason to assume the Big Bang isn't/wasn't/won't be caused by some event in the future. At the minute, that causality only works forwards is an assertion based on observation, not on underlying principle. For all we know, our universe might be responsible for its own creation.
An amount of free will must exist.

Or alternatively: Uncertainty of future is a physical fact.
I question this assertion, but only on the basis of the apparent order of causality. As I said, it's entirely possible that causality may not be entirely linear. Then again, the linearity that does appear in causality cannot be wished away either.

Certain things are not questionable...such as contradictions, which are also abstract concepts. A thing is not tall and short, at the same time, this is a contradiction. Nor is something round and square or existent and non-existent, at the same time. So, yes, there is at least one abstract concept that is unquestionable within the realm of our own physical universe.
Contradiction is unquestionable because we define our system of logic to make it so, not because it is a property of our physical universe that contradiction cannot be. It is not the case that a thing cannot be tall in one system of interpretation and the same thing short in another. In other words, there may be very few contradictions (if any) outside of synthetic conceptual systems.

However, you're correct to point out that these conceptual systems have an existence, albeit subjective, and that dispute cannot be made against the objectivity of the reality of subjective understanding. Or, if you want a quote, "The inherent self-evidence in subjectivity verifies objectivity, even if it is the only confident assertion in objectivity that can be made".

On consciousness/sentience: If something cannot be known, it may as well not exist. If a book is left where no one will ever read it, the book doesn’t exist. The paper and ink exist, but the book itself does not, because it means nothing if no one knows about it.
A couple of points.

Firstly, you’re treating ‘book’ as a rather abstract concept, seemingly separate from its physical constructed form.This seems rather odd as the term ‘book’ would, to me, seem inseparable from the physical construction of ink and paper. This is, I would suggest, be why we differentiate between a book and an e-book; the term ‘book’ doesn’t accurately describe a digital document. If, however, by ‘book’ you are referring to the knowledge contained within the pages, then again I’d say this was slightly mistaken; we don’t use the term ‘guitar’ to refer to the sound produced by said instrument, for example.

Moreover, I’d agree with previous posters that something can indeed exist independently of whether or not it is being perceived. Even George Berkeley (pronounced BARK-lay, not BERK-lay), one of idealism’s greatest champions, relied on God observing everything, or everything existing in God, to make sure a table or chair didn’t pop in or out of existence inconveniently.

In the same way, the existence of the universe is reliant on sentience. Therefore, the “beginning” of anything would be when the first consciouss mind could observe it.
We have, and are, observed processes currently underway in the Universe (such as for example, continental drift) that would have either started, or are dependent on unobserved processes or phenomena.

If my finger is numb from the cold and hidden under a blanket, does it then cease to exist? If it does, then does the (interestingly, as with any internal organs, unobserved) blood flowing from my heart to my hand merely stop at the edge of existence before the blanket, or does it flow into nothingness?

The first concious mind would be the first mind to conceive of the concept of beginning, but you are on the long and lonely road to solipsism if you continue your present course.

Consciousnesses are their own reality, and have the power to change it. But we have been taught and educated by other consciousnesses, and have had their reality taught to us, so that is why even though we are our own reality we do not have the ability to alter some of the most commonly accepted laws of physics, because it is so far pushed into our minds that we are not now strong enough to override the instinct to believe in it.
Been watching the Matrix a bit to much, eh? :p

Seriously though...

If consciousnesses were their own reality, distinct from every other, then how could aught and educated by other consciousnesses? This would seem to suggest that the two realities are in fact one; that if person A can reach out and change person B’s reality, then A must, necessarily, be part of B’s reality, and indeed share it. I have hear many claim that we can alter our reality, simply by raising our conciousness, reaching enlightenment, casting the right spell, taking more psychotropic drugs, etc., but I have yet to see any effect on our, shared, realities.

Think of young children playing Hide & Seek. They close their eyes and, as they cannot observe you, assume they are invisible to you. They have not yet learned that we can still observe them (and going back to your point, they have not been ‘taught’ their ‘reality’), so according to your thesis, they would indeed become invisible. However, to the disappointment of toddlers everywhere, they are still very much observable.

Absolute truth will only exist when there is one being left, and if that consciousness ceases to exist, so will everything until a new consciousness is spawned, and the timeframe between those events will be nonexistant since no one was there to measure it. Therefore, consciousnesses are eternal, and there will always be sentience.
I’d contend that if the last concious mind ceased to exist, then everything would not simply pop out of existence, but would simply cease to be perceived. It’s certainly true that, as humans, we are eternally labelling things and pushing things into handy frameworks. But it doesn’t follow that those things measured and pushed into these frameworks only exist because of the frameworks they inhabit.



Since formulating and debating a philosophical framework of my own creation was the reason I picked up a philosophy major (unfortunately, all I do is write papers about Kant, Cartesian Dualism, the major differences and similarities between Hegel and Schleiermacher and other such annoyingly dull and tedious crap...warning to anyone thinking about picking up a philosophy major :p)
That is unfortunate. Though a large part of philosophy is reading and analysing previous philosopher’s work, I’m glad I’m at a university that encourages independent thought and research.

Though, honestly, what’s more interesting than metaphysics or the philosophy of mind is Ethics and Social Philosophy. It’s the only part of philosophy that is useful in the real world. ;)
I’d argue against this, but I do agree that moral and political philosophy is, to me, more interesting.



If a tree falls on a deaf person, can anybody hear his screams?

That’s all I’ve got. I’ve never really understood what philosophy is ‘for’...
Philosophy is for examining all aspects of our lives; our beliefs, ideas, attitudes towards others...

Without philosophy, humanity would be going round in circles without any new concepts. We are all philosophers, some just take a more in-depth approach. :p

That is unfortunate. Though a large part of philosophy is reading and analysing previous philosopher’s work, I’m glad I’m at a university that encourages independent thought and research.


I’d argue against this, but I do agree that moral and political philosophy is, to me, more interesting.

Well, my university is primarily well known for its sciences and business school. The Liberal Arts gets kind of pushed to the wayside, relative to the others, as well as suffers from a kind of...I dunno, contamination of teaching methods, I guess?

And I was actually a bit over-zealous in my support of social philosophy. Actually, philosophy, no matter what area, should really be a required minor to supplement all majors. Metaphysics is actually, supposedly, extremely useful to those who go on to do work in theoretical physics. ;)

Personally, though, I love the field of ethics. I find it fascinating, but that's probably a political science/economics bias slipping in, too, since the field lends itself strongly to political philosophy.

Contradiction is unquestionable because we define our system of logic to make it so, not because it is a property of our physical universe that contradiction cannot be. It is not the case that a thing cannot be tall in one system of interpretation and the same thing short in another. In other words, there may be very few contradictions (if any) outside of synthetic conceptual systems.

However, you're correct to point out that these conceptual systems have an existence, albeit subjective, and that dispute cannot be made against the objectivity of the reality of subjective understanding. Or, if you want a quote, "The inherent self-evidence in subjectivity verifies objectivity, even if it is the only confident assertion in objectivity that can be made".Well, I'd still disagree. I just happened to pick a poor example with the short/tall. However, something is not perfect vacuum and packed with matter (well, maybe singularities...but I wouldn't know, my understanding of physics really only extends to "pop-physics"), or..well, there's no use adding examples since it pretty much comes down to a thing cannot be in a state and not in that state at the same time. It can be in two different states simultaneously, yes, but not two diametrically opposed states, regardless of the logical construct you're operating under (assuming it's one within our universe, that is).

Well, I'd still disagree. I just happened to pick a poor example with the short/tall. However, something is not perfect vacuum and packed with matter (well, maybe singularities...but I wouldn't know, my understanding of physics really only extends to "pop-physics"), or..well, there's no use adding examples since it pretty much comes down to a thing cannot be in a state and not in that state at the same time. It can be in two different states simultaneously, yes, but not two diametrically opposed states, regardless of the logical construct you're operating under (assuming it's one within our universe, that is).
Well, what I'm challenging is that very assertion that diametric opposition necessarily occurs in the physical world rather than simply in systems of understanding. Who's to say that real things cannot be and not be both at once, regardless of what synthetic logic would say about it? Indeed, Shroedinger's cat is a thought experiment of that very potential within a physical world that appears to depict an inerrant sense of uncertainty.

Well, what I'm challenging is that very assertion that diametric opposition necessarily occurs in the physical world rather than simply in systems of understanding. Who's to say that real things cannot be and not be both at once, regardless of what synthetic logic would say about it? Indeed, Shroedinger's cat is a thought experiment of that very potential within a physical world that appears to depict an inerrant sense of uncertainty.

The problem I have with Schroedinger's Cat is that, while it is a wonderful example of uncertainty, it's only applicable to a subjective state. Yes, the cat is in an existent/nonexistent state, as far as observer's outside the box are aware. However, to the cat itself, and all things within the box, its state is very much so either existent or nonexistent. This may seem to lend subjectivity to the question of existence, however, even were the cat not to exist, its nonexistence would be "realized" by all things within the box, regardless of the uncertainty of those outside the box. I will grant that if you completely isolate a thing from the universe so that it is in no way interactive to any degree whatsoever with the rest of the universe (it does not even share the same space as the rest of the universe...a very odd concept to actually grasp, if you think about it a little) then it might be said to be both existent and nonexistent simultaneously, however here we run into the problem of, since it is a completely separate entity from our universe, isn't it, at this point, a universe in and of itself, entirely unrelated to our universe? I would argue that at that point you are speaking of a different hypothetical universe, rather than our own, as it seems to me that a requirement of existence is interactivity with our universe. So this other, new universe can only nonexist, its existence being incompatible with its current state of non-interactivity.

however here we run into the problem of, since it is a completely separate entity from our universe, isn’t it, at this point, a universe in and of itself, entirely unrelated to our universe? I would argue that at that point you are speaking of a different hypothetical universe, rather than our own, as it seems to me that a requirement of existence is interactivity with our universe. So this other, new universe can only nonexist, its existence being incompatible with its current state of non-interactivity.
Yes, something being ‘outside’ the Universe seems to go against the commonly held view that the ‘Universe’ refers to, and contains, everything in existence.