Yeah, it's 'fear of death' (i.e. self-consciousness), not death itself, that's "evil" because it's unwarranted (gratuitous). — 180 Proof

:fire: :up:

This is where two sides of points are needed.

Subjectively, I am the centre of the universe.  All the objects in the external world, people and the earth and the whole universe is just the contents of my consciousness. When I fall asleep, the world and universe disappears. If I don't exist, the universe and the world may still keep existing, but it is just out of my imagination. There is no way that I could be sure of that.

From an objective point of view, I am just a part of the universe. I exist as a being just like all other beings do, and will have to follow what the beings have to go through in their existence according to the law of nature.

I still do find that Freud's idea of life and death, as Eros and Thanatos useful in understanding of opposition or inherent conflict. — Jack Cummins

From Life and Death point of view, if Death is viewed as Evil, then it is negativity in extreme. But then one's own death does not exist while living. It is just a concept.

Possible worlds is a quite different area. It explicitly assumes consistency. This does not. Of course, if this could be made coherent, then it might be applied to possible world semantics. — Banno

Would it be able to cover the area of the Traditional and Modal Logic, where they cannot cope with some of the real world cases in the arguments?

Nor does it have anything to do with existentialism. But it might be a sort of deconstruction, in which consistency is seen as a special case... — Banno

Existentialism as opposed to Rationalism, and denoting absurdity, irrationality and unpredictability?
Even if it is Inconsistent Math, if it is a Math, it would have some consistency, one would imagine.

Now, who'd a thunk non-euclidean space could be useful... — Banno

Math had started out of practical uses in ancient Egypt for building the pyramids etc.

Yes, but it’s an echo chamber and only really worth it for those who are interested in breaking news and current affairs.
I quite like it for cartoons and satire. — Punshhh

When I was on twitter, I didn't like the way some of the people in twitter were behaving like the Wildebeesty mob on some of the topics.

Why don't you see for yourself? It's really easy to sign up. — Wheatley

I was on Twitter before, but closed it. At the time, there were a few traits that I was not too happy with it. But after a while, I am wondering how other people feel about it, and thinking of returning to it.

Haven't got a scooby clue who that bloke is.

Do you think it boils down to ethics again? How so? — Shawn

I feel it more boils down to one's own value in life, rather than ethics. Depending on the value of one's life, the idea, nature and act of examining will be formed more clearly.

" If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. " - Soren Kierkegaard

"Marriage brings one into fatal connection with custom and tradition, and traditions and customs are like the wind and weather, altogether incalculable." - Soren Kierkegaard

Deep Purple - Soldier of Fortune Lyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9hmm6MZ3GY

I think Evil has the feel of that man made, man based and man created badness.
Devil more sounds like esoteric, and religious nature in its origin.

It is negative energy, acts and entity of all sorts, that must be overcome and quelled by any possible means.

I feel Inconsistent Math is a misnomer.
It would be better called "Deconstructed Math" or "Existential Math", or how about Possible World Math :D

Unless in can be pointedly inconsistent. Take a look at the articles cited — Banno

Sure. That sounds like again the different interpretations stemmed from different definitions of "inconsistent". Still wondering if it would be much practical in the real world.

Yes. — frank

Could you please show the detailed arguments for the verification? Thanks.

That's not a belief system. — frank

Is it a verified knowledge or proposition?

Just that every belief system is supported by faith. — frank

What is that belief based on?

I think that distinction is useful. But does it apply to religious beliefs? If there is a God, then religious beliefs may not come from a private psychological state. They may come from the insight that there is a God - an insight that some people happen not to have. Which gets us back where we started. — Cuthbert

Sure. I think it does. :fire: :up:

It's not meaningless (and it's not a tautology either, since it's not logically impossible for someone to come back to life, merely physically impossible as far as we know), the proposition: “When someone is dead, he cannot die (again)” is clearly true, since if someone was dead and then died, he would have died twice, which is impossible.

At least, that seems to be what Sextus is saying. — Amalac

Yes, I recall some miraculous cases of people coming back to life after pronounced dead. Would it not be the case of mistakenly pronounced death, when the person was just unconscious?

“Not legitimate” as in unreasonable. — Amalac

When someone says, not legitimate, it is usually for birth of child, I used to imagine. I am planning to get a good etymology dictionary soon.

True is considered an objective fact, not the subjective feeling of the believer. — Hanover

:fire: :up:
OK. I will go with that.

Assuming Knowledge = a Justified True Belief (K=JTB), the reason that a belief in the effectiveness of a placebo is not knowledge is because it's not True. The person had a justification (he was told by a scientist the pill would work) and he believed the person, but it wasn't true. — Hanover

From the placebo taker's point of view, it was a true knowledge? From the doctors (the giver)'s point of view, it was false knowledge. But until the placebo taker is told that it was false, to him it is true.

A premise can't be valid or invalid, only an argument can. A premise can only be true, false or meaningless.

If you say that premise is false, what's your response to this then?: — Amalac

I see some premises as arguments and some arguments as premises depending on the block of texts in the arguments. The point is that it is not coherent.

What do you mean by “not valid” here? I guess you mean illegitimate?

But why isn't it legitimate? Isn't it correct to say that a living thing can only die once? Because the only way someone could die twice would be if they died, then came back to life, and then died again, which is surely impossible right? — Amalac

Right!! Because a man cannot die twice. When already died, saying the he cannot die, sounds like some tautology or meaningless proposition to make. Not sure about not legitimate - never came across that term in the Logic books.

When socrates died, he has already died, so the premise that socrates couldn't have died when he died seems invalid. When someone is already dead, it is not valid to declare, he cannot die.
Invalid argument led to the wrong conclusion.

The point of Mathematics is the universal consistency, accuracy and infallible knowledge it gives. If it is inconsistent, then it loses its' point.

We can introduce the concept of inconsistent maths in some possible worlds for some metaphysical debates, but that world would be a world of chaos and confusion.

I thought about the nature of different beliefs, and concluded that there are two types of beliefs. I also thought about the case of Placebo regarding faith requirement for it.

1. The beliefs based on the rational or inductive knowledge such as believing that flying is a reasonably safe form of transportation or Covid vaccines will protect the takers from the infections.

2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs.

In the case of placebo takers believing the placebo will cure his symptoms, it is in the form of misled knowledge rather than belief. When placebo is given to the taker, he will be told what it is about, and what it will do even if it is fake. He could believe it might work, but he doesn't have to. There is no logical condition of necessity for him to believe that it might work, even if he is knowing falsely what it is supposed to do in curing his symptoms.
The point here is that he knows about it in detail in the form of knowledge, although it is false knowledge. It is no longer beliefs.

My thoughts exactly. — Wayfarer

:fire: :100:

Radiohead - Lift

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBGaO89cBMI

Not 'how' in any meaningful scientific sense. There's two different creation narratives in Genesis alone. There are thousands of such creation narratives in different cultures. The Hindus have one that the universe was created from a cosmic egg, a single point, the 'bindu'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, he dropped it from the beginning of the video quite sensibly. But all the creation narratives still can be meaningful when approached by hermeneutics or analytic methods to come to some metaphysical explanations. Things can be interpreted from different perspectives. They may not be critically scientific, but still can be enormously meaningful in different ways.

Someone should tell him that. — Wayfarer

Thought it was obvious :D

Radiohead - Daydreaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAU7lLDZYU

That depends on who you ask. — Wayfarer

Philosophers raise issues with premises and stick to their good old arguments to come to some conclusions. The traditional philosophical method is discourse.

Physicists will stick to their observations, measurements, calculations, functions and try to make up theories to prove their hypotheses were right.

But every scientific theories are made to be proved wrong by further theories and discoveries. Don't rely on them as some eternal truths.

The point about 'God theories' is to encourage you to practice compassion and right living. Belief in God is not a scientific argument. Many scientists don't believe in God, others do, and it makes no difference to their work. — Wayfarer

God theories talk about how the universe had been created too.

find Seah Carroll a pleasant enough fellow, and he's obviously an ace in his area of expertise but I think he's philosophically pretty shallow. — Wayfarer

He is just a quantum physicist. They are not philosophers. :)
But it is interesting to hear how they see the origin of the universe. They are still all just assertions, which are not fully verified and agreed universally.

That also confirms that belief of Placebo is not faith type.

"False belief" (i.e. make-believe, delusion) is "faith". :roll: — 180 Proof

The difference between false belief and faith would be, the former will turn to feeling of anger, stupid or having been manipulated when being told it was placebo the believer was taking, whereas faith will not be easily broken by any empirical information no matter what the empirical information was. (mentioned above)

Surely they are not the same type of beliefs.

More or less how I've always done it. — 180 Proof

:fire: :up:

The trick is to philosophise at nights when everyone is asleep, or during days coffee breaks and lunch times, and the weekends. When others are busy enjoying themselves shopping dinning and galavanting around ... we philosophers would sit in the corner of the garden or a room, and entertain the deep thoughts. :)

Great posts thank you. This is what I think about the points.

I feel that there are different kinds of beliefs of different nature.  To analyse how they are different, we can ask "Why"  one believes  X.
1. Why do you believe flying is unsafe? Because I have seen, and heard the horror stories and news, sometimes air accidents and disasters have happened in the past. If they happened in the real world, it could happen in the future too.  I believe it is unsafe or it is not 100% safe to fly.
The belief is based on the inductive cases in the past. This type of belief is bound to change any time depending on the empirical evidence acquired by the believer.

2. Why do you believe in God?In this case, anything can be the reason.  It is not limited to the inductive or deductive premises or experiences. It could be totally personal, psychological and existential and even irrational.
Because I just believe in God. Because I was brought up under a religious background.  I don't know. I just know God exists.  I have had unexplainable experience that God exists.  
All these reasons are mostly psychological, and are out of boundary for rational explanation. No arguments can diminish or break this type of belief unless the believer changes his mind by his own internal thoughts based on psychological reasons.

3. In the case of Placebo, the believer is taking it on the basis that the pill will cure his symptoms just because it was given by a doctor.  The belief is false, and as soon as he knows it is a placebo, his belief will crash to nothing.  It has nothing to do with faith. It is not the case, that he doesn't know why he wants to take a placebo, but just taking it for some existential grounds, or he was brought up under the placebo taking traditional family or he just knows that placebo will cure his symptoms.   If the placebo was given by a passer-by he met in the park, he won't necessarily believe that placebo will work for him.   So placebo does not require faith. In fact it has nothing to do with faith. It is based on the placebo takers' false belief that it might work.

I can see your point. Beliefs and trusts crumble with emergence of the negative evidence and knowledge about something one believed and trusted.  

I recall when I was 15, I flew in an airplane for the first time.  Everything was fantastic and exciting.  At that age, obviously I had no knowledge about possibilities that air planes can crash, get kidnapped or even shot down from the ground military action. 

I never had an idea that an airplane is a man made machine that has thousands of parts working together, and can fail any time for unexplained reasons. Maybe I did, but was not giving any serious thought about it at the time.

Now after many times of flying and times gone by, I am aware of the possibilities of air disasters. I hate flying.  I only fly if only if I must, for work, business or visiting family in another country in really must situations only. Beliefs and trust require good rational reasons for having them in daily life. I feel that beliefs and trust in daily life are different kind from beliefs and faith in the case of religion.

In my view it is not wrong to say that the entire Philosophy from the ancient time of Thales up to now, could be defined as Analytic. The recent anglo-american analysts just made it more rigorous system.

I don’t think you understand it. Have read of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation — Wayfarer

I read it, and this is what I think about it.

I don't think I would take the MWI theory too seriously. It's like what Einstein said, that the universe is 4 dimensional, and there is no time - no past, no present, no future. In their theory maybe, but in reality, it doesn't make sense.

I don't see any practical or factual point of saying that there are many real worlds out there because of this and that evidence from the measurements and observations, if I can't walk into one, and live in there as long as I want, and come back out and try some other universe in real life experience.

I feel that one shouldn't follow any theories one hears about just because it is said by a quantum physicist or some famous scientist. One should take in what is feasible and useful for one's own thought logic. If you really think it is right, no one will stop you from believing it.

But I thought the OP video had a couple of useful and meaningful messages that I took as a good point - God theories professed by the armchair philosophy does not give anything practical or useful for the description and understanding of the universe.

Radiohead - Just

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFLtNYI3Ls