@Banno I've been meaning to read Wittgenstein for the past 4 bloody years. Can you link me to his books (available for download)?

Ok Mr Smith, I believe ya! I know you like the cryptic path — universeness

So it seems. We're, as someone said, human.

:clap:

God doesn't exist. — universeness

On target! I meant exactly that.

:up:

You were right schopenhauer1 about this world, you were always right.

:up:

Which is? — universeness

What's the first thing that came to mind when you read the OP?

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, friend :sparkle: — javi2541997

:smile:

This question is superb, but I'm afraid it's been answered via consensus in a way that's considered scientifically impossible. Too, the hypothetical scenario fails to capture everything that is God. :halo:

I'm asking you. You wrote it. — T Clark

Apologies mi amigo, but Banno's the lead vocalist. I'm just a backup singer. Looks like I'm going to be unemployed very soon! :snicker:

Wayfarer has covered this topic? — TiredThinker

In countless posts mon ami, in countless posts. Seek and ye shall find.

That, mon ami, is a wonderful summary of our my predicament.

Chalmers seems to be quite knowledgeable about science.

One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me.

How is this relevant? — T Clark

Please ask Banno.

What an awesome, awesome question. Just curious, is there a branch of philosophy that studies/investigates choice and how we make them? I know that free will is a big, big topic, especially in religion, but as far as I know there's no "choiceology" like there's e.g. theology.

I could tell you there is a vein of gold 1 mile under your feet, but if you want to see that gold with your own eyes, you've got to dig. — staticphoton

On point! Good logic!

Well, there seems to be a consensus among the posters regarding what happens to time at lightspeed and perhaps beyond via simple extrapolation. There are attempts to describe this state but I feel we could improve upon them if only those who have the relevant info tried ... a little harder.

Jeremy, the great Bentham, father of utilitarianism, proposed a simple mathematical formula called the felicific calculus. It does go into minute detail (visit Wikipedia for more), but the point of it all is mathematized ethics. @jgill I'm sure will be a valuable consultant in this matter, but he might/should charge a reasonable fee for his contribution to the topic if he chooses to do so.

Ok. I missed the boat, alas!

:up:

Ethical motives or just a diet activity? — javi2541997

Mainly ethical.

:up: Hope, love, peace are intriguing ideas/sentiments. I am where I am. :broken:

We have two essential aspects: praxis and metaphysics. — javi2541997

That's a superb summation! :up:

How we live. How we think. — 180 Proof

That's an awesome simplification! :up:

I (only) want to be a vegan. :sad:

And then there is Socratic irony, but no one here would know how to use that — Banno

I would like to tender my Apology. :snicker:

Kant, I wonder what he would've said regarding the morality of torture. FYI, he was pro capital punishment.

A proper account of irony is going to have to differentiate it from sarcasm.

I've no idea what sarcasm is. — Banno

Interesting comment mon ami! :up:

The AC overheated? :chin:

The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
— Agent Smith
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. — Gnomon

Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view?

How do you know that you "really know" this? — 180 Proof

Good question 180 Proof. I wonder what the reply will be like.

Ok!

Danke!

So it's like I can't prove whether Jesus existed or not from the fact that green light has a wavelength of 555 nm.

I have known Buddhists who view Jesus as a bodhisattva — Tom Storm

This is a really, really uplifting statement.

To Christians, Buddha is a saint and to Buddhists, Jesus is a bodhisattva. Perfecto!

But this part of what you wrote is correct: The continuum hypothesis is equivalent to the assertion that there is no set that has cardinality strictly greater than the cardinality of the set of naturals and strictly less than the cardinality of the set of reals. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Thank god! :pray:

So we're looking for an infinity bigger than N and smaller than R. What are the ramifications of the existence/nonexistence of such an infinity? You said or someone else did that Hilbert wanted the CH proven/disproven ASAP.

I thought the Continuum Hypothesis was about the existence/nonexistence of an infinity (I) such that cardinality-wise, set of naturals ($\aleph_0$) < I < set of reals ($\aleph_1$).

What would be the implications of there being an I?

Elon Musk has made Twitter his Facebook page! He's transforming ... slowly but surely ... into something quite hideous some would say.

What I don't get OP is why single out Twitter in this way. Free speech is an issue that touches all social media platforms. I suppose it's about reach - Twitter has ~ 450 million users on any day.

:grin:

David Chalmers is a genius; most philosophers are.

Ok!

Cardinality as in the cardinality of the set {a, &} is 2?

I addressed that about half a dozen times in posts above. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Apologies ... patience is a virtue. :smile:

I see where you're coming from. It's very simple, isn't it? After all, (our) liberty is at risk. What's needed is a good education for our children and we'll be ok. Democracy, by the way, is a wonderful system and I'm glad you're for it.

No problemo!