• Literary writing process
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    I love R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing trilogy (though not so much GRR Martin's GoT slog – I never made it pass the first two volumes a decade before the HBO show) and your writing seems on par with Bakker and yet, like Vera Mont, it leaves me cold (so far). Maybe it's the European-ish (late Renaissance) milieu which doesn't fire my imagination. Also, less magic is much more for me – more believable when its mysterious and unpredictable (chaotic, not arbitrary), and revealed gradually by the plot – rather than its strangeness explained away (possibly) for the reader's convenience.

    Anyway, it's your tale, Count, so tell it and I/we will read on as long as you hold us. Btw, I've tried writing in the fantasy (folklorish) genre a couple of years back for TPF's first short story contest. My story is linked below, a rough draft followed by charitable comments some of which, no doubt, will help me whenever I come back to it either to expand and polish the story or develop it as a chapter in a longer piece or as an 'episode' for an anthology of linked stories which explore the same setting (world). An experiment more than anything else, not my usual style; I enjoyed it though the jury (in my head) is still out on the tale's merits. I wonder what a fantasist like you might make of my attempt ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11526/good-stew-by-180-proof/p1

    @Vera Mont
  • The colloquialism of darkness
    I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good? — chiknsld
    "Good" -- for what? How about: "darkness" is good for seeing the stars, or good for sleeping, or good for prey avoiding predators, or good for cooling-off desert fauna & flora, or good for (many forms of) mysticism, or good for vampires (& goths) ...
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Ciceronianus
    :rofl: :up:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.
    — 180 Proof

    Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me.
    — 180 Proof

    How do you reconcile the two above quotes?     — ucarr
    With respect to the quotes above, I referred explicitly to your groundless notions (e.g. "super-nature", "causal non-closure of the universe", "instantaneous communication", "cosmic sentience", etc) and not to your "argument" as such; "not even false" is, more or less, synonymous with (or implies) "unintelligible word-salad".
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :cool:

    ↪Vera Mont
    :100:

    ↪Amity
    :up:
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Pantagruel
    :roll:

    ↪Tom Storm
    You might find this youtube interesting ...
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Pantagruel
    Have you read the even a few pages of this thread? If so, can you point to examples of "gross trivialization" of H just because he was an unapologetic Nazi?
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪Tom Storm
    :smirk:
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Tom Storm
    A guess from pp1 & 2 of this thread...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790451
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790632
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    In a previous portion of this thread, the energy was referred to as "Kundalini" from ancient Hindu traditions. Which is most certainly known of by science. But would be rejected as "woo woo" by most materialists. — Bret Bernhoft
    I'm confident, Bret, it's rejected as woo woo by most (almost all) scientists. :mask:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Vera Mont
    :fire: :hearts:

    ↪universeness
    Your youtube link suggests maybe I/we are persuading you that we're circling the drain of our own ten thousand year
    making ... :smirk:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805683
  • A question for Christians
    ↪Average

    In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross. — Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    One need merely say 'Tübingen Seminary' to understand what German philosophy is at bottom: an insidious theology. The Swabians are the best liars in Germany: they lie innocently. — Friedrich Nietzsche, 1888
    Heidegger lies notoriously always and everywhere and wherever he can. — Hannah Arendt (1950ish)
    One can forgive many Germans but there are some Germans it is difficult to forgive. It is difficult to forgive Heidegger. — Emmanuel Levinas, 1974
  • The Atomists
    ↪NotAristotle
    The question makes no sense since the universe is itself – is constituted by – space(time). Where (or when) is the universe? :roll:
  • The Atomists
    [W]hat is the difference between empty space and nothing? — NotAristotle
    Empty space is a kind / state of space which, having a property (empty or non-empty), is not nothing.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    If paired-particles are instant communication across unspecified distance, that range exceeds the measureable space within a physically closed universe. — ucarr
    Entanglement =/= "instant communication" (or communication of any kind).

    E.g. Two opaque envelopes are sealed wherein one contains a dollar bill and the other does not, but we do not know which; one of us travels with one envelope to the moon and then opens the envelope and learns at that instant the content – state – of the other envelope on Earth; ergo, no "communication" between envelopes, just past correlation of information about the paired envelopes.

    In other words, observing one "paired particle" does not "instantly communicate" – causally affect – the other "paired particle", but only reveals what was unknown, or unknowable, before either "paired particle" was measured. Entanglement = "paired particle" correlations prior to measurement.

    This argument might be false, as suggested by your specific counter-narrative; it is not unintelligible.
    I did not claim or imply that your "argument is unintelligible"; rather that the implication of 'compatibility of your supernaturalism with fundamental conservation laws' is not even false.
  • The Atomists
    ↪NotAristotle
    ↪NotAristotle
    At best, antiquated Parmenidean sophistry.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    My claims[speculations] are falsifiable... — ucarr
    How so? For example –
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Since you're dismissing the metaphysics of my super-naturalistic universe as fiction — ucarr
    I have asked you to physically square the supernaturalistic circle, so to speak, and you've not done that. If I was merely "dismissing ... as fiction", then I wouldn't have asked you for a speculative account that is at least consistent with known physics. Your pseudo-scientistic supernaturalism, ucarr, is unintelligible – mostly word-salad – to me. Regardless of whether or not I'm guilty of "naturalist monism", my objection to your claim of "causal non-closure of the universe" is physical (i.e. theoretical-observational), not yet metaphysical (i.e. a categorical interpretation of physical theory), because to begin with you get the known physics wrong (re: "Does entropy exist?") As far as I'm concerned, sir, you might as well be speculating (in pseudo-scientistic terms) on the physics of "Middle-Earth" (Arda) instead. :sparkle: :eyes:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals. — universeness
    :100:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    The amount of wisdom [insights] that can be sussed out from the Hindu traditions is mind boggling. — Bret Bernhoft
    Yeah, I agree, especially (for me) the Cārvāka, Advaita Vedanta & (heretical) Theravāda traditions. :up:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    A good word for it is "Kundalini". — Bret Bernhoft
    :sparkle: Oh....
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    There are obviously forms of energy that strict materialists don't embrace. — Bret Bernhoft
    Such as? :chin:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why. — ucarr
    Non sequitur again. A further example of us talking past each other – I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. We're at an impasse, ucarr, so long as your 'transcendent speculations' do not account (at least to my philosophical satisfaction) for the / any known constraints of physical laws on the observable (post-planck era) universe.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Well, as a dialectical counterpoint to
    ↪Jamal
    ' re: Zappa's anti-pop :wink:

    OTD 60 years ago, another brand new release in the US ...

    "She Loves You" (2:18)
    A-side single, 16Sept63 (US) & 23Aug63 (UK)
    writers Lennon-McCartney, 1963
    The Beatles

    :clap: Fab gear!
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    I'm sure there are many fantastic arguments in the world against materialism, but I suspect they mostly come from people who [don't] know what materialists think. — flannel jesus
    :clap: :up:

    In fact, religion limits [retards] moral development. — praxis
    :100:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Is causally closed somewhere in the neighborhood of necessarily closed? — ucarr
    I don't know.

    Is speculative, causal, non-closure in the neighborhood of necessarily open?
    I don't know.

    Do you think my supposed quest for a necessarily open universe is a quest for establishment of cosmic sentience?
    You tell me, ucarr. The term "cosmic sentience" seems to me oxymoronic.

    Do you think a causally open universe implies an increase of mass_energy that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?
    Yes, either net increase or net decrease.

    Do you think a causally closed universe entails a partially deterministic universe?
    No.

    Conjecturing a causally open universe that is transcendent non-ontically, what do you imagine such a universe would look like structurally speaking? Would it be consistent with conservation?
    I've no idea. Inconsistent (i.e. theoretically incompatible with fundamental physics).

    Do you see that one implication of your statements is that atheism is predicated upon a monist metaphysics?
    No.

    Do you see that an implication of monist metaphysics is that the metaphysics of theism, with its dualism of mass_energy/spirit, propounds a false binary?
    I think substance dualism (i.e. "mass-energy / spirit") is inconsistent – theoretically incompatible – with fundamental conservation laws and the principle of causal closure in physics.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪Gnomon
    :lol: Nice try.
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    Are you asking how an open network of subsystems configures conservation within its domain? — ucarr
    No.

    Do you perceive a conflict between conservation and and something implied by an open network of subsystems?
    Yes.

    What does it mean to talk past someone?
    I'm talking about known physics and, as far as I'm concerned, you are not.

    Why should not the general public talk about the concept "universe"?
    N/A

    What did you think I was saying about the concept "universe"?
    I think you're claiming that the universe is not causally closed and therefore the effect of 'some ontologically transcendent cause'.

    Why was your impression of what I might be saying about the concept "universe" of interest to you?
    I was interested in your 'speculative causal non-closure' which is inconsistent with the fundamental conservation laws of physics.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • What happens to reality when we sleep?
    I wonder what happens to reality when we sleep. — Cidat
    What are the grounds to "wonder what happens"? Sleeping is real, ergo (at least that aspect of) "reality" happens.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    @Bret Bernhoft :point:
    ↪180 Proof


    I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. — Gnomon
    Well, I find Spinoza's non-transcendent substance, or natura naturans, much more parsimonious and elegant (as do e.g. Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche ... Einstein, Bohm, Wheeler, Everett ... David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd et al). Btw, Epicureans & Stoics are also immanentists, to wit: "the source of energy" is existence itself (à la the vacuum); thus, "creationism" by any other name, whether biblical or onto-theological – multiplying (transcendent) entities – is both philosophically and scientifically unnecessary. :smirk:
  • Quantum Entanglement is Holistic?
    ↪T Clark
    :100: :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Well, I haven't been a humanist since Old World conquistadors and colonial settlers genocided New World peoples and built empires via the Atlantic slave trade and centuries of indentured seritude. I've also given up on utopias since the Stalinist purges, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and the fall of "The Thousand Year Reich". And what has the "Greatest Generation" wrought with the "freedom" they have defended or won? Corporate globalism and its laissez-faire collapsing of the Holocene (aka "the Anthropocene" of accelerating catastrophic climate change, etc). The tragic mismatch of Stone Age brains – amplified by our primate glands and Bronze Age superstitions – with the current Information Age is undeniable: h. sapiens is, in the main, a delusional, tribalistic species

    Perhaps, if our species continues long enough to be very lucky, 'networks' of local / micro, post-scarcity, economic democracies (e.g. self-sufficient space habitats / terrestrial arcologies) will be achieved — 180 Proof
    If I had to bet on 'our future', I'd bet on the posthuman tribes of less than a few percentages of the teeming global population in the coming decades or centuries. Our synthetic children might be our genome's salvation.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    How about this – Only the Tech Singularity can save us? :nerd:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    Well, on this precipitous down slope, comrade – paraphrasing a "revered" old Nazi – only a Singularity can save us. :smirk:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    No thanks. We're now talking past each other (and neither of us are physicists anyway). I'm no longer interested in what I thought you were saying about the concept "universe".
  • The Problem of Universals, Abstract Objects, and Generalizations in Politics
    Nonviolent coexistence is not a thing, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2
    Yeah, evidently veraphobia. :mask:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    You're speculating outside of known physics (i.e. absent a falsifiable theory of QG) yet I'm asking you to reconcile known physics with another speculative claim you've made about the universe itself. Metaphysics that does not account for, or is not grounded in, well-established physics is indistinguishable from pseudo-science or worse, IMO. I wonder if I'm taking your statements here too seriously.
Home » 180 Proof