6.371 At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. — Wayfarer

It's not really an illusion. It is simple a renaming of God. Says nothing. Means nothing. But with this little problem taken care of, science can go on and observe and report their observations up to the limit of Planck's constant. Below that we must rely on the thoughts of our own minds.

Philosophers of all types consider the repercussions of the human tendency to consume more and more. Why this propensity toward still-destruction? It is an interesting idea to ponder. Even environmentalists love consuming, e.g. Gore.

Science reports on what is happening, philosophy tries to explore why it is happening.

Time does not lie on a point. It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.
— Rich

I can watch things change right now. Time at the very least is empirical. — Marchesk

You can observe things change but that is not real time, duration. We feel time passing even if we are not observing anything but we still feel it passing - except when we are asleep, which is actually pretty remarkable and science had no explanation for the mind changing into this rather interesting state.

Time does not lie on a point.
— Rich

I didn't say so — bahman

.

Actually you did. Read your presentation. You are defining duration as lying between two points. Exactly b what lies between two points?

It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.
— Rich

I was not talking about psychological time.

Real time is psychological time. Duration is a feeling. There is nothing physical or v spatial about it.

One can never know the short term consequences if any action or long term, which is an important idea that scientists totally ignore, particularly those involved with biology of any type.

I imagine life and death cycles are similar sleep and awake cycles. Interestingly Hamlet alludes to this analogy in his famous soliloquy.

Time does not lie on a point. It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.

We c are just two souls who are evolving by learning and creating. Whether we consider each other friends, foes or otherwise is a changeable state of mind.

The irony of those who transformed the Four Noble Truths into some game of seeking Enlightenment is that all they have done is ignore the Noble Truths by creating a huge desire for themselves. The Middle Way avoids this by simply practicing moderation.

Unfortunately your casual example was incomplete which led to a incomplete have. Had you noticed that a traffic light event had totally unpredictable number of events (though some more probable than others), then we have a better understanding of nature. None of these happening in some fantasy MW universe.

I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations

The point is too observe if one really wants to understand Nature. Nature doesn't behave like as answer to multiple choice questions.

Truths lead to thoughts and these, in turn, lead to action. — TheMadFool

It's a simple observation which may or may not cause a reaction. Forget the Truth things.

Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically — tom

Realistically?

suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful. — fishfry

Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you.

Think about all possibilities.

I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God?

Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow. — fishfry

These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes.

Correct. But what does it motivate but an escape from suffering? — TheMadFool

It is an observation that is all. Everyone may and probably will react differently.

No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to?

Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid. — Posty McPostface

You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation?

On to the extent that it is determined that everything happens.

Now, such a philosophy truly sits between the absurd and the worthless. Welcome to scientific determinism.

But philosophy has nothing to do with a changing universe. Philosopher's deal with ideas not the universe. Sounds like a job for science. — Purple Pond

Suit yourself, but the greatest philosophies are all about nature and life.

The problem is that no one has time to explore and observe all. — Purple Pond

Patterns develop which provide insight, but the Universe is constantly evolving so there will always be something new. No need to feel bored. :-)

Memory is fundamentally everything that is learned by some observation. It defines our being.

Do you pick and choose what philosophy you read? Surely you don't just jump into a random philosophy book without first making a judgment about it. — Purple Pond

Most academic/written philosophy is repetitive and very limited. For the most part, geared for those who believe one can understand nature by reading about it. Once in a while there are some very creative ideas from those who have immersed themselves into exploring nature. In any case, one cannot make judgements about anything until one has explored it and I've learned to disregard crowd judgments which inevitably embrace average by its very nature.

One builds a philosophical perspective by exploration and observation of all, not some.

How do you know if a bit of philosophy is good? — Purple Pond

There is no such thing and it doesn't matter. If one is interested in understanding the nature of nature, everything becomes an integral observation. Nothing is discarded.

So, the topics I would like to discuss here are why the universe is the way it is, — darthbarracuda

It is the result of universal creative activity of different sorts. All science is doing is observing the activities and giving it different names.

I'm sorry I don't follow. What changes in memory? — Akanthinos

Perception of actions both internal (imagination) and external (will).

Except there is very obviously a seperation between memory states and conscious states.

I also dispute the idea that saying "immediate is what we feel as the passage of time" is in any meaningful. My feeling of time is anything but immediate in many situations : when I sleep, when I day dream, when my time is related too strictly to a task...
12 minutes ago ReplyShareFlag — Akanthinos

Separating memory from consciousness would be a neat trick.

When you sleep or in other states time changes because the nature of memory changes. Science had no explanation at all for how ir why the feeling of time changes. The mind is clearing experiencing a change in the type of memory it is pulling from.

Do you agree with the following?

“…[E]xcept for the problem of ‘What am I’ there are no other metaphysical problems, since in one way or another, they all lead back to it”
Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator — Mitchell

I would say, "What is it that is creating and evolving?". With a notion of this, further questions can be formulated.

And memory can cease, since anything that can exist can also be destroyed (cease to exist). — SnowyChainsaw

That is the rub. Memory persists, it doesn't cease, nothing ever ceases, which is the answer to the OP's question of the origin of perspective.

Saying "memory is embedded in the fabric of reality" is redundant since everything that exists is embedded in reality, otherwise we would not say it exists. — SnowyChainsaw

Yes. And memory has persistence though it is evolving. A straightforward observation.

Memory is nothing more then a sequence of chemical and electrical signals the brain can recreate. — SnowyChainsaw

It's the other way around. Memory is fundamental and persists with our without the physical manifestation. A memory signal persists whether or not there is a receiver, be it a TV set or brain.

Thanks. Unfortunately the .2 deduction stands. It was a judgement call.

it is relevant, since the question is where does perspective come from. Basically it is acquired memory which is the core of consciousness along with the creative spirit. Together consciousness evolves.

Care to elaborate? — SnowyChainsaw

The Universe is fundamentally memory that is in constant flow due to Creative action. We see this memory as habitual movement with slight, continuous changes. We feel it as time.

Memory is everywhere and is never destroyed. What we may call inherited characteristics or inborn skills or quizzical innate abilities (idiot savants), is memory evolved from the past. We are all different and because of this have different perspectives.

.2 deduction for Fallacy of Ad hominem. An unfortunate stumble which probably eliminates you from gold medal chances.

Have you studied logic, it's not opinion based. — Sam26

I just observe the discussions on the forum. Sometimes observation provides a better understanding of life than cookbook textbooks.

but in philosophy, ideally, it's about truth, at least partly. — Sam26

That would be a different the of competition, i.e. who had the greater Truth. Now it becomes more religious in nature and people compete for the King of the Truth Hill. Science, Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam? Who do you think had the greater Truth?

There are no objective rules for logic, only everyone's different versions which are debated on philosophy forums.

Perspective can be viewed as memory that transcends physical lives. Memory never ceases as it is embedded in the fabric of the universe.