well said. I am not in a good mind frame to brain at the moment or i would attempt to formulate a more provocative response.
Later, I hope.

I wouldn't have the nerve to tell someone they're wrong and that I'm the one who knows what they really should believe — T Clark

Is that not what you did with what you have expressed here?

Scientific classification is mammal but humans are a little different than most mammals, though I'm no biologist..

How can two nothings be compared? — believenothing

Again, as a frame of reference nothing needs no comparison, it is universal. Comparison arises between "things".

believenothing
28
Nothing must be everywhere and universal. — believenothing

I agree to this as part of my argumeny though the rest of this sentence made no sense to me.

hey Myttenar..? You still breathing? ;) — believenothing

Affirmative. Awake is another story :)

the fact that he doesn't have any water to drink, flush the toilet, or wash with — T Clark

This information + logic is why the man knows to fix the pump. Repeat process for next step. Information + logic. It's that simple

since deductions are made in the process, logic has been used. I'm not sure where the problem in understanding that is, I assumed it was common knowledge .

Take for example a man attempting to fix an electric pump.
Logic is the reason he is fixing it, first of all from the proposition of "does it work" with an observation being made and conclusion derived that it is not, logic is used to make the decision to fix it, the man has realised in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesnt work (identifying a problem) and since it doesn't work logically moves to the solution of fixing it (setting a goal) and logically determines how to fix it (determining method) and identify when the problem is fixed(determine when a goal has been met).
Logical reasoning at every step.

Logic applies to propositions - statements of fact. It doesn't address applying human values, identifying problems and goals, deciding the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determining when those goals have been met. Applying, identifying, deciding, and determining are human acts. — T Clark

I would disagree to this statement on the grounds that one can logically identify a problem for example. We can logically deduce if goals are met. We use our personal/perspective logic to set goals.

Logic develops ideas far beyond statements of fact given what we deduce from the premise. More than mere propositions or statements.

Maybe I've missed something here?

"Doesn't that mean you are implying that at least in some places there is an absence of nothing?"

Well yes obviously, every place where something exists that is not nothing..


"I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference." - Myttenar

Forgive me for assuming the point was made, I should have expanded.

I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I have had the same belief and hope for a more utopian society also, but this requires a change in perspective of our entire race to one that acts as a race and not as a collection of individuals.
To me the idea relates to the way cells act in groups- enough cells from a body that acts together as one entity. I would like to suggest that given the right number of humans that this perspective change must take place and that this must occur for humanity to survive and evolve.
Intentional evolution you could say.

" I don't think there is a logical process that will solve any of our problems."

So it follows that these problems then are illogical problems?

And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere.
I think the problem here is the attempt to assign value to nothing when nothing is the lack of a thing with a value.
To say "nothing" exists is in itself a fallacy as nothing carries the definition as being the opposite of "something " which we can quantify.

"doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist?
— Myttenar

Nothing is real anyway."

I apologize if you missed that, I was making a joke.

By "it"- I was referring to the quantified nothing, which has properties due to being quantified. Since nothing had been defined as having no properties by assigning value it is no longer nothing by definition.
Again, I found it humorous to picture a philosopher who has lost nothing in the literal sense and attempting to find it.

Hilarious to me, anyways.

Anyways, just so nobody can say I did not add to the idea, I believe that by creating a definition for "nothing" if you are having difficulty with the idea.

Intro with a Solid argument though :D

This reminds me of the p=np problem for some reason....
Anyways I just wanted to ask, doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist?

1. Everyone loves Oscar Meyer weiners
2. I will act in a way conducive to creating a life in which I am loved by all.
Therefor I will become an Oscar Meyer weiner.

"both propositions, both true. But what in their respective truths is the same? "

Since "strawberries taste good" is subjective I'm going to say perspective.

I actually agree with You, but in my perspective of a person is going to be receptive and responsive to an idea has little to do with how sophisticated or pretty it sounds.

From my experience there are few that choose to logically build ideas.
Many seem to reject the idea when presented and express themselves emotionally, attacking others because of a difference of opinion. Logically refuting an idea is productive at least

Actually thats the one big hurdle of the thought and the reason I doubt it's validity..
I assume the link is about a Rob Bryanton idea, imagining the tenth dimension?
Amazing conceptualization.

I see your point. From my perspective i do understand your expression of time as a series of frames, and I am saying that there is, as part of that subset, a frame that contains itself and all of those subsets in a single frame and represents an object which has the property of expressing itself with the effect of what we perceive as time passing.

It is still explained by the same model of spacetime. It would refine it to show time as an energetic interaction between what we consider spacetime and the physical reality and quantify time in a slightly different way.
Thought I haven't studied the model recently I don't believe the adaption would create much of a difference as far as the operation of the model.

"it" was in reference to your post about correspondence theory..

Thought and belief without propositional content.. to me resembles instinct.
I had assumed that propositional content was exactly the methodology used to develop beliefs.
Maybe I am unclear on the idea?

Your position on this is quite obvious so allow me to ask, do you recognize the problem that the statement calls our attention to and if so, is there a logical process that can be considered to improve the problem that you perceive?

Nailed it :)

does that mean then that some beliefs are inherent and are never questioned?

you're right, my language became stronger after the repeated attacks, I apologize for responding to the question with emotion clouded judgent.
Try a refutation of the original statement instead of the out of context responses to the verbal bullying. It helps to try and understand the position of the idea instead of assuming it's position and ignoring evidence of the opposite.
Perhaps you have been trolling and I erred in judging your intentions.

Feeling threatened by thread content no doubt. I do apologize.

Since the point that I still never asked to rule so this is a misrepresentation of my position and has no actual bearing on this conversation and continues to fail to add value to conversation with overtones of judgement, contempt and thinly veiled attacks.
Sorry you feel that way.

well I can't speak for you but since I am conscious of myself I can deduce that I exist at very least.

No, if you read the statements I've made you would see that I simply want to create jobs in logic
Oh and vive la revolution!

There is no refutation in your statements so I won't point out the fallacies. :)

And my point is that philosophers should be attending those experts to adopt the logical process. Let those trained in logic use it.

The point is the logical process one can attend.
Questioning reality is the foundation of philosophy...

You tell me, i dont presume to know in reality let alone in a hypothetical. Besides that's why it's an interesting proposition some entity created a virtual reality that we are in and that is the only stipulation, so if that is the question then follow the logical process. There are a finite number of considerations to take.

You forgot rule by idea
And the mechanism for rule does matter if society is to prosper not implode.

A logistician used their critical thinking skills to make deductions based on information provided. They don't need to be the one working in that field but are provided the information by those who are.

1. Opening with an attack is a nice touch but an appeal to emotion..
2. My point is that given the critical thinking skills of the philosophers and trained critical thinkers is a grossly untapped resource and I apologize for misrepresenting if that was the way it was taken.
As a logistician we try to make our deductions with the information available and understand that we are don't actually know anything but can use logical process in areas that truths are provided by those in those fields.
This skill alone shows management skill..
And everyone is a victim of their own perspective, our society thinks it is right just as much as Hitler thought he was. I don't really wanna compare to see who had more evidence to support their belief.
Psychologically speaking, The attacks made indicate a repressed internal problem being expressed subconsciously.
Philosophically speaking any attack is an appeal to emotion and become little more than a distraction an adds no value to the conversation.
Your statements are invalid.

1- deductive fallacy. Other possibilities have been overlooked.
2-Begging the question- given the idea of 'god' is acquired knowledge, built on ideas of acquired knowledge which are assumed as true.
3. By definition God can not be known, so any argument build on the premise of "things known about God" are by nature, false because the premise for the argument is false.
4. If God is "Good" then God cannot be evil as perfection does not exist in a state of contradiction.
5. If something is omnipotent then it embodies that which is evil and by relation is evil.
6. Perfection is a state of existence without flaw.
7. Fallacy is flaw.
8. To be omnipotent is to be flawed and be flawed as part of the definition
9.If God is not perfect, the idea of God is flawed.
10. God is omnipotent God cannot be Perfect.
11. If God is perfect, God can not be omnipotent.
I could go on but why beat a dead horse.

based on your argument, God cannot exist and the idea itself is flawed being a contradiction of its iwn terms of existence even by its own definition ergo your argument in invalid.

Side note:
Just for a fun thought experiment redefine "God" as the creator of a virtual reality that we are in.


"For those who believe, no proof is required. For those who don't, none will suffice."
- I forget