Doubt: Someone knows.
Skepticism: No one knows.

:chin: The Doubt-Skepticism paradox!

'Outside of time' is not the same as 'of endless duration'. — Wayfarer

The difference being...

To be eternal is basically to claim that the passage of time doesn't/fails to register change. Suppose an object, call it x, becomes eternal at exactly 5:00:00 PM. For all intents and purposes it's properties, it itself, is stuck at that particular moment. Basically, any duration after 5:00:00 PM is, for x, zero/nought! In the simplest sense, time no longer matters to x and isn't that equivalent to being outside of time? I dunno.

Is dilution the solution to pollution? — James Riley

:clap: :100:

All I know is that it's a scientifically valid method. If not homeopathy is legit. See :point: homeopathic dilutions.

Since water & air are the most voluminous diluents available, they seem to be the obvious choices. I wonder though whether some toxins are so potent that they're still harmful at even homeopathic dilutions. The late James Randi in a TED talk claims that the concentration of the active ingredient in homeopathic "medicines" is 1 atom in a volume of water the size of our solar system! I believe the relevant paramater is median lethal dose or $LD_{50}$. Check out Wikipedia for more on that.

The game is not worth the candle, is it?
— TheMadFool
When "the game" is all there is ... the question is moot. :fire: — 180 Proof

No choice! Doesn't sound all that fun! I quit!

Yes, Buddhism is realism in that it has a rather dim view of metaphysics. From how metaphysically austere Buddhism is, we can discern an attitude that can be described as anti-metaphysics. One fascinating technique of dealing with the problem - metaphysics - is Nagarjuna's tetralemma. It simply takes any claim, metaphysical ones included, and teleports it into another dimension, a dimension that's beyond the reach of both language and logic (have I left anything out?). It's overkill but the Buddha didn't want to take any chances. There are skeptical undertones in this.

The game is not worth the candle, is it?
— TheMadFool
When "the game" is all there is ... the question is moot. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up:

That's a good question too. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad, but if I stop to think about it when good is happening, then I lose it. To stay lost in that beautiful rapture would be the key. Not thinking about it as it happens would be the key. Some times I wish my brain would STFU so I could live something without all it's stupid considerations of logic and morality sticking their nose under the tent. — James Riley

It's hard to find one's bearings in the world, it's one big messy affair and yet, from a certain angle, life boils down to, what?, a handful of simple rules. No guarantees though and that's one of the rules.

I wish it would be so easy to lose the bad when it's happening! I've been trained up somewhat to do that (embrace the suck) but it's not easy to be a tough guy. You can stare at a wound and try to enjoy, or defeat the pain. But I can't keep that up for ever. Too bad thinking about the bad won't make it go away. — James Riley

This is the paradox: Bad makes you think & not think at the same time! Think about it!

For one, there is in our culture barely any setting in which it would be appropriate to talk about suffering. One cannot talk about it at the watercooler at work, not at the family dinner, not in a cafe with friends. Not at a baseball game. Doctors generally don't have time for any actual discussions, nor do priests or monks. One must also always be alert so as to not give other people reason to doubt one's mental wellbeing. We're left with self-help groups, but there, the group discussion is guided by whoever happens to lead the group, which limits the scope.

There is something perverse in talking about suffering -- regardless of the setting -- and then going back to one's life (even more so if it's a relatively comfortable life) as if nothing happened.
So it's no surprise people don't talk much about suffering, or mostly only in very superficial, sketchy ways. — baker

Reminds me of a phrase my brother-in-law, P, likes to use: "the elephant in the room!" It's a rather sad tale, life - we forget life's misery and suffering by getting ourselves drunk on the spurious liquor of illusory happiness.

I guess it's (too) painful to talk about suffering - why add to our woes by talking about it?

Well-trained animals understand hints.

"There is the case where a certain excellent thoroughbred person hears, 'In that town or village over there a man or woman is in pain or has died.' He is stirred & agitated by that. Stirred, he becomes appropriately resolute. Resolute, he both realizes with his body the highest truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees. This type of excellent thoroughbred person, I tell you, is like the excellent thoroughbred horse who, on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, is stirred & agitated. Some excellent thoroughbred people are like this. And this is the first type of excellent thoroughbred person to be found existing in the world. — baker

:up: I wish I'd taken a hint or two when it could've made a huge difference to my life. Oh well, why cry over spilt milk?

Negative utilitarianism (seems to) imply that we should all become plants (alive but, get this, no suffering at all because plants can't feel pain).
— TheMadFool
No, don't confuse Negative Utilitarianism (i.e. Epicureanisn) with Transhumanism (i.e. Abolitionism).
So who was it that said having a brain is a good thing
Mr. Scarecrow, Fool! :smirk:

What you say about "abolishing all pain" does not also abolish dissatisfaction or self-immiserating behavior?
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. — J. S. Mill

but then...

(I know that) I know nothing. — Socrates

The game is not worth the candle, is it? :grin:

The Chinese Game Paradox

Recently, the Chinese government set down restrictions on (video) games, probably by limiting access to gaming platforms. However, this is where it gets interesting, it has, I believe, instituted a social credit system for its citizens which, in my book, is gamy gamy.

Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer. — baker

:100: Alas! Few understand this. The question is why? Innumerable works, both true & fiction, are available on the topic of pain/suffering for anyone and everyone to flip/scroll through. Wittgenstein was right I suppose. David Chalmers too.

Buddha stands out...like a sore thumb - he was able to, I surmise, actually feel the pain of other beings, both on earth and other worlds. He once said "a good horse moves at the shadow of a whip." Too bad that's just a myth!

moral responsibility does not work as a function of knowledge. — Antony Nickles

And we do this in order to have control and presage our communications rather than be responsible for them. — Antony Nickles

Interesting! :up:

How right you are! Essences do seem to have a subjective side to it. How would, for example, an alien define a dog, in terms of its essence. There's a worldview hidden behind the scenes that determines, to some but a substantial degree, how we see the world and that, to my reckoning, will have an impact on what we consider as critical to what, say, a dog is. Isn't this why Wittgenstein said, "if a lion could talk, we would not understand him."

As for science, it seems to or, at the very least attempts to, zero in on the fundamental nature of, how shall I put it?, stuff i.e. when science (say) states that water is $H_2O$ it means to convey that - the molecular permutation thus described - is the true nature of water. Something's off but I can't quite my finger on it at the moment.

Screw logic! I wanna live!
— TheMadFool
As Freddy might say, logic-usage is an expression of life. They're not mutually exclusive. — 180 Proof

They're not the same thing either (false positives & false negatives are errors).

I might as well ask, do you suppose so-called cognitive biases give us an edge over the competition, evolutionarily speaking that is? In other words, irrationality is/could be an advantage when it comes to survival. Socrates, for example, felt the full force of reasoning well viz. death by Hemlock! Socrates probably set the precedent for the wise (rational) to be tried by a kangaroo court and quickly sent to the gallows. At this rate, by 3000 AD expect foolery to go global. It's a paradox I tell you! Glad to have lived at a time when 180 Proof was around!

Now, I know the answer to where is everybody? (Fermi Paradox)? All intelligence has been replaced by idiocy!

[deleted post] — 180 Proof

Even your deleted posts make sense! :lol:

Sure. If we are not able to calculate probabilities for a suggested possibility...then that suggestion is not verified as possible. Its just a made up suggestion.
i.e. Brain in a Vat. — Nickolasgaspar

-"First comes possibility, only then probability. "
-Correct. — Nickolasgaspar

Kindly expand and elaborate. As far as I can tell, probability is the mathematics of possibiliity - it's basically a numerical perspective on possibility. In short, you've put the cart before the horse.

Words are not symbols.

You brought numbers into the discussion. You have to explain why?

Logic and morality are distractions; leisure time activities — James Riley

What a remarkable statement. Morality seems more pain/suffering-oriented (negative utilitarianism) and everyone who's been through high school knows enough about how pain operates - at a subconscious level (the unthinking nature of pain :point: Relfex Action)

Moral theories then are mental reflexes - they're not arrived at by a process of step by step logical deduction (reactions, not responses). Obviously, right? Where's the time to think when someone's skinning you alive?

For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know — James Riley

:up: See :point: Eco-"terrorism" & Radical Environmentalism.

I think predator and pray and the whole animal kingdom knows that, lives that, dies that, even when they are not fighting. — James Riley

Hmmm... :chin: :up:

Some people know how to do that consistently, or so they say. Guys like Eckhart Tolle? Personally, I've not yet been able to master it. I have, however, had glimpses of it; the birth of my son, hunting, and a few other times, usually of beauty or danger. — James Riley

:up:

The danger in beauty or the beauty in danger. Perhaps another reason why if it bleeds, it leads. Beauty, danger, boredom, death and dying all entwined like in a serpentine mating ball - can't tell which head belongs to which tail and which tail belongs to which head. Does it even matter?

Update

We know the formulae for good & evil.

1. Thou shalt not this
2. Thou shalt not that
.
.
.
There are 10 commandments, some are local and others are global. The point is we know how to be good.

It's just that we have no theory that backs up these moral injunctions. Jeremy Bentham tried and failed. Kant tried and...failed.

We should, I reckon, stop theorizing and simply use these ethical formulae.

This is exactly the kind of confusion that can be avoided if we stop theorizing. Since we're talking about physics, how different things would've been if the laws of physics were not contextualized in some kind of theoretical framework? In the absence of theories in physics, there would be no metaphysical accompaniments to argue about or, more to the point, be puzzled by.

You really don't make any sense.
You said:"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
Probability seems relevant? To what ? To Possibility?
Do you calculate possibility? How ?
I am not sure you fully understand those concepts — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, but if you think probability matters to my thesis, you'll have to show me how?

:up: The next worst thing that can happen to one, after death, is ennui and the most exciting thing on earth is death & dying! Go figure!

Gives a whole new meaning to the expressions "dying of boredom" and "bored to death".


Immortality? Boring! Death!

You need to be more specific ...what concept and what odds? — Nickolasgaspar

You brought up probability. Are you saying you have no idea what you're talking about?

This thread :point: Higher dimensions beyond 4th will elucidate my point better than I can.

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there). — 180 Proof

:up: Screw logic! I wanna live! :grin:

I'm afraid Newton didn't understand Galileo or Einstein. Clearly, you don't either. — 180 Proof

Isaac Newton stopped short of formulating a hypothesis. Galileo and Kepler, the same thing. Einstein, on the other hand, put a theory (SR + GR) on the table. Ol' Albert took one step too many, he went too far.

Yes, you'll hear scientists and ordinary folk showering praise on Albert Einstein's genius, completely forgetting the theory of relativity is just one of probably infinite theoretical frameworks that could explain the relevant observations.

probable — Nickolasgaspar

The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course!

Second more important point, I asked you whether you are confusing "possibilities" with "probabilities". — Nickolasgaspar

First comes possibility, only then probability.

First of all you can not remove Theory from Science — Nickolasgaspar

Hypothesis non fingo. — Isaac Newton

Let's just give it a try before we start criticizing. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Update

As indicated in my reply to @Gnomon, possibility is, let's own up, is the Devil's work. There's something evil loose in the world ( Satan: The Great Deceiver) and that's the main reason why we need to treat possibility seriously - deception leads to :point: false happiness, injury and death, to name but 3 of its ills. In Indian philosophy Maya.

Why was God enraged by Adam & Eve's apple experiment? Theories abound but a simple explanation is the couple were exploring possibilities: "we could eat the apple, you know" thought Adam & Eve after the serpent (Satan)...er..."talked" to them. Once the doors of possibilities were deviously, even though gently, opened by the serpent's forked tongue, Adam & Eve became true blue skeptics, their minds spinning under the immense weight of all possibilities imaginable, the devil's domain, infernal hell if you wll.

No prizes for guessing why God acted so quickly and so decisively.

A digression, hopefully an interesting one.

No. Reread my previous posts. — 180 Proof

Then, I'm afraid, you didn't understand Newton! :lol:

That would be a good way to go back to the dark ages of human thought. — Nickolasgaspar

Was the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica written in the Dark Ages? I think not! Newton was very clear on what he wanted to do - describe nature's behavior and no more (hypothesis no fingo). Einstein was in agreement (spooky action at a distance). Why is action at a distance "spooky" anyway? It doesn't make sense at all - I find nothing odd about magnetism or gravitational attraction. Perhaps I'm from another planet or from another universe.

:up: @180 Proof

Is there some kind of psychological principle that makes us more inclined towards bad news? What explains the media law - if it bleeds, it leads?

Is risk aversion part of such a mindset?

In economics and finance, risk aversion is the tendency of people to prefer outcomes with low uncertainty to those outcomes with high uncertainty, even if the average outcome of the latter is equal to or higher in monetary value than the more certain outcome. — Wikipedia

We wanna know the worst that could happen in order to put safeguards against such eventualities. So, in a sense, nothing really morbid or there's no psychopathology in wanting to see the darker side of nature - it's simply a good survival strategy.

Coming to the OP's question, protecting nature, some believe, is simply to leave it be, leave it alone, let it do its thing. However, humans are part of nature; thus, let us do our thing! Nothing's amiss here! Mother nature, in most cases, seems to know what she's doing.

From another angle, it's obvious that humans are disrupting the natural balance - ecosystems usually achieve equilibrium and is self-sustaining using mechanisms that are, at the end of the day, simple give and take. On this view, protecting nature amounts to putting a stop to human activity interference.

You're quarreling with some of the most profound scientific successes of at least the last century, Fool. Good luck with that! :rofl: — 180 Proof

:grin: The deck is stacked against me, I know.

Doesn't what I say make sense though? Scientists would no longer need to disprove hypotheses/theories since there are none to begin with. That would save a lot of money, time, and free up minds to discovering other laws of science.

Perhaps we could divvy up the work - one group of scientists dedicated to finding the laws of nature and another group who can sit at home and draw up theories & hypotheses.

What about e.g. Mach, Poincare, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, Bohm, Everett, Deutsch, et al? :roll: — 180 Proof

All made the same (silly) mistake - hypothesizing/theorizing!

Shut up and calculate! — Nathaniel David Mermin

From Newton (hypothesis non fingo), through Einstein (hypothesizing/theorizing), to Nathaniel David Mermin (Shut up and calculate!), it's been a long journey!

Do they? Not in my experience. Not according to theoretical scientists, historians, historical novelists, political / military strategies, long-term forecasters (re: e.g. climate change). — 180 Proof

I'm going to focus on scientists here. There is no need at all to theorize/hypothesize. All scientists should be doing is extract the mathematical law in the workings of nature and once that's done, they should call it quits. For instance this is exactly what Newton did. He discovered the formula for gravitation $F = G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$ and when asked for an explanation he replied hypothesis no fingo.

Interesting, no?, how the need to think about possibilities arose from predation. Both hunters and the hunted need to be on their toes 24×7 to survive and what something could be as opposed to what that something looks like (appearance-reality distinction) becomes vital for life.

No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, take on a dark tone/theme - Descartes's evil demon, Harmann's (brain in a vat) evil genius, etc.

An alien who studies our philosophy will immediately realize that we're afraid of something and that's a dead giveaway - we had humble origins as prey in the African savannah. The tables have turned though - we've, as you mentioned, climbed our way to the top of the food chain because of our superior brains. This very achievement then becomes the reason that we don't let our guard down - the situation may reverse and we could end up at the bottom once again.

I've attempted to establish a tentative link between predator-prey dynamics and intelligence with skepticism as a yardstick for the latter (critical thinking is largely an exercise in skepticism).

Contemplating gendankenexperiments (in science, history & fiction) are my metaphysical jam! :smirk: — 180 Proof

:up: What use are gedanken experiments when they obscure rather than clarify?

Yes, language can create as much as solve problems. This is why some believe that truth is to be found in silence. — Apollodorus

:zip:

Socrates was, let me be very clear, executed! Do all philosophers have a death wish? Is philosophizing just another way of suiciding?

When I'm in a certain state of mind, I see the flame of truth burning bright in the pitch dark and philosophers as hapless moths drawn by the shimmering light only to perish in the searing heat.

Danger! Danger! O Philosopher, beware! Truth tempts you with light and when you're in range, kills you with heat!

Philosophy ain't worth it!

I can tell you straight up, Buddhist meditation is infinitely less pleasurable than masturbation. — Wayfarer

:rofl: That means...Buddhism is a big fat lie!

I'm unable to tell whether the extra digits in relativistic velocity addition compared to Newtonian velocity addition is a question of accuracy or precision.

The calculated velocity has to be measured for confirmation of either theories (Newton's & Einstein's). In other words, the deciding factor is a speedometer's precision and accuracy.

Suppose the actual velocity is 2.0189 m/s

The speedometer is both accurate and precise.

It measures 2.0189 m/s

Newtonian velocity addition says the velocity should be ?

Relativistic velocity addition says the velocity should be ?