• "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    Of course science only solves empirical problems and does not answer philosophical questions.

    Philosophy, as Wittgenstein points out, only describes how we use concepts (by which to interpretively frame 'experience') whereas unfalsified theories in science are used to explain – model the conditional causal relations of – transformations from one physical state-of-affairs to another. AFAIK, (fundamental) sciences are hypothetico-deductive (i.e. experimental) and not merely inductive (i.e. experiential) as per Popper vs Hume, et al. It's philosophy, in fact, that "explains nothing" about the world (i.e. existence & reality) but instead non-trivially interprets whatever we think we know about the world, etc.

    "The big questions" are, at best, conceptual lenses (prisms) through which we orient our lives, loves & livelihoods. IMO, you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy and/or employ philosophy to undertake scientific tasks.
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    Clarify what you mean by "explain" in this context in order to better grasp your claim that "science explains nothing".
  • Are there any jobs that can't be automated?
    Given what you know about robotics and machine learning, do you think that there are jobs that can't be automated?Josh Alfred
    At least one: "god" – (the) omni-providential agent.

    Are there one's that are going to be harder to automate than others? What are those jobs?
    None after AGI has been achieved (i.e. post-Singularity).
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    To be precise, science explains nothing ...EnPassant
    Well, to be even more precise, scientific theories cannot explain everything and whatever they explain they can only do so approximately.
  • The universe is cube shaped
    The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point.AlienFromEarth
    My candidate for the "fundamental level of existence" – the constitutive, dynamic ground state – is planck events (i.e. vacuum fluctuations / field excitations). As far as metaphysic goes, IMO this "fundamental physics' corresponds to the Democritean void (or natura naturans of Spinoza).
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    A metaphysics is not a piece of evidence or a collection of facts to be compared against scientific claims. It’s the meta-framework within which scientific claims, facts and evidence are intelligible. Change the metaphysics and we don’t ‘disprove’ a science’s facts, we change their sense and relevance.Joshs
    I'd only add 'to the degree "the meta-framework" is rational' (i.e. soundly inferential, coherent & self-consistent).

    :up:
  • Culture is critical
    To me, that describes what true spirituality is, when it is directed against injustice.universeness
    A post from an old thread Ethics in four words ...
    Flourish By Minimizing Harm.

    Liberty By Minimizing Injustice.
    180 Proof
    Ethical & political, respecticely.
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    Metaphysics is a discipline; imagination is a faculty.Mww
    :up:
  • Culture is critical
    As even though you are prepared for, or perhaps even expect the worse, you will continue to strive for the best, why is that? Is it more than mere forlorn hope?universeness
    Like breathing or a beating heart, defiance – striving – is involuntary. Conatus, will to power / amor fati, revolt. A 'happy warrior' does not succumb to the despair of "hope". :strong:
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    You are basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that metaphysics doesn't actually get at ontology (like Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel, etc. thought): instead, it just is a useful model for experience.Bob Ross
    This is neither a charitable nor close reading of what I actually wrote, Bob. I'm an Epicurean-Spinozist, after all, very much concerned with ontology, or the concept of what Clément Rosset calls "the Real". To paraphrase the beginning of my statement on 'metaphysics': it is an inquiry into criteria for differentiating 'what is necessarily not the case' from 'what is possibly the case' in the most general sense; thus, ontology, as I understand Epicurus/Spinoza, is an explanation of concepts for "the Real".

    Metaphysics is not theoretical.180 Proof
    Translation: Physics (Aristotle et al), not metaphysics, "is a useful model of experience" (i.e. physical reality, or publicly intelligible aspect of the real, aka "nature"). Metaphysics consists in categorical criteria for making hypothetical explanations, or "useful models..."

    Maybe that's clearer?
  • Culture is critical
    'Happy warriors' prepare for the worst, strive for the best, and gladly take whatever comes. :death: :flower:

    Do you not feel connected to those in the past that fought/died/failed/succeeded to do what they could to change peoples lives for the better?universeness
    Of course I do. 'Histories are ghost stories', which haunt us, whether or not we believe them.

    Or do you think they should not have bothered trying as our species is doomed anyway?
    Living things survive in spite of – not because of – their inevitably "doomed" state. Facticity. Entropy. Extinction. "The blues is life itself." "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." After all, there ain't no immaterialists in foxholes. :fire:
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    :up:

    "The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests ... So we seek explanations that remain robust when we test them against those flickers and shadows, and against each other, and against criteria of logic and reasonableness and everything else we can think of. And when we can change them no more, we have understood some objective truth." ~David Deutsch

    An excerpt from an old thread "Metaphysics in Science" ...
    Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality can be) - btw, I'm an actualist, not a possibilist - thereby concerning the most general states of affairs; unlike the sciences, which consist of testing models of how possible transformations of specific, physical (class, or domain, of) states of affairs from one to another (can be made to) happen, and thus is explanatory (even if only approximative, probabilistic), metaphysics explains only concepts abstracted from, and therefore useful for categorizing, (experience of(?)) 'how things are', and does not explain any facts of the matter. Metaphysics is not theoretical.180 Proof
  • Does knowledge have limits?
    If knowledge didn't have limits, then any knowledge would be all (infinite) knowledge. Besides, asking the question – any question – presupposes limited (incomplete) knowledge, so the OP topic is moot.
  • What is real?
    You and I are using the word "faith" very differently. Given the context of my exchange with simplyG, Joshs, your response doesn't add anything relevant.
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    I've no idea what you're talkimg about (possibly because you don't either).
  • Culture is critical
    If the masses would just occupy the common ground between us all.universeness
    :rofl:

    Mate, that proletarian ship has sailed (and sank) a long while ago. (vide T. Veblen et al). The carcass of :victory: :flower: was ripe by Spring '68 ... we've just been loitering in its shallow grave ever since (vide S. Beckett, J. Baldwin or T. Ligotti). What's that? "Doomster speak!" No, just one latter-day primate all-too-soberly gesticulating this old blues to another :monkey:
  • Is maths embedded in the universe ?
    Just dumb matter.simplyG
    :ok:
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    Science does not "try to supplant God" because science itself is not an agent. You seem incorrigible on this point, Simpleg. Btw, knowledge does not "supplant" ignorance, just as logos does not "supplant" mythos. Proof: there are, and always have been, scientists who are also theists (or mystics). After all, it was a Catholic priest and physicist-astronomer who had counseled his Pope not to misconstrue the Big Bang as evidence, or proof, of the biblical "Let there be light".

    The more persistent proxy or synonym for "magic" or "fantasy" or "the impossible" is that three-letter word for ego: "God" – because "God did it" doesn't explain anything just as "God said it" does not justify anything either. Science is a discipline for collaboratively striving to explain by best approximations which are more efficacious, publicly testable and reliably corroborable than (fact-free, faith-based) non-explanations such as "God". The results of natural sciences work regardless of what we believe or do not believe, and teaches its students and practicioners to say, and explore, I Do Not Know :fire: instead of infantilizing themselves as adults by sucking on cosmic lollipops.
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    "Science did it" is meaningless since science is only 'a way of (toolkit-library of correctable algorithms for) naturalistic problem-solving' and not itself an "agent".
  • Culture is critical
    Ergo, AGI–>ASI is needed to produce the post-scarcity civilization that we scarcity-addled hyperglandular primates apparently cannot produce for ourselves. :victory: :mask:
  • Literary writing process
    Discipline and letting go.Amity
    Yes – the late poet and critic (and friend in my bohemian 20s) Hayden Carruth had once described jazz that way. My daily habit of four-plus decades has also been, as @Vera Mont says, "my life-vest" despite drowning once or thrice.

    The interview is fascinating.Amity
    Did you listen to all five parts (video clips) of the interview? I've always admired her thinking and her essays but not so much her fiction even though Iris Murdoch was a fine novelist.
  • What is real?
    :roll:

    Reality does not require "faith" ... insofar as whatever there is constrains – encompasses – "whatever else" we believe or do not believe "is the case".
  • What is real?
    something can be real to me but not real to someone elseA Realist
    Such as?

    ... I think you must be confused.unenlightened
    :up:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    There's no question that Individual-1 committed tax fraud ...180 Proof
    As I wrote last year (click on my handle for context), another jackboot has dropped today:

    https://youtu.be/dOhxBCOMtWU?si=We7y3-pvOADosoh1 :clap: :grin:

    @Benkei @NOS4A2 ...
  • Culture is critical
    What happened to US politics is not in any sense tribal. A political faction, a bunch of yahoos united by nothing more than license to oppress another group, a deluded minority of underachievers dreaming of reclaimed privilege, those with actual privilege too jealous to share - these are not tribes.Vera Mont
    :100: :up:

    Much respect.
  • Is maths embedded in the universe ?
    ... And if so does it point to a creator?simplyG
    No.

    The question is what came before?
    This question doesn't make sense.

    ... if maths can theoretically describe anything does that mean that reality is a subset of mathematics made manifest?
    I think a subset of mathematics usefully describes subsets, or aspects, of reality and the rest (most) of mathematics does not. As suggested by Max Tegmark (David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram et al), the universe might be nothing more than a lower dimensional mathematical structure (i.e. a reality, n. naturata) imbedded in higher dimensional mathematical structures (i.e. the real,, n. naturans).

    Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe ...
    Not insofar as physical systems are (Quantun Turing) computable.

    ... and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe ...
    I agree as I wrore above.

    ... and in fact supersedes it?
    I don't understand what you mean here by "supercedes".

    :up:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ... nature is order AND chaos, so if God is nature then God is both order and chaos.praxis
    :100: e.g. atoms & void / natura naturata & natura naturans. :fire:
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    :lol: Wrong. Read the book (and the article closely).
  • Deep Songs
    :flower:
  • Deep Songs

    "Harvest Moon" (5:03)
    Harvest Moon, 1992
    Neil Young
  • Post Psychedelia
    I've got nothing to say
    but it's okay

    Fab gear! :sparkle: :up:
  • "Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
    [T]he atheist says science did it (the big bang created the universe etc).simplyG
    Strawman. If not, then cite an atheist who is also a scientist (i.e. astrophysicist / cosmologist) who makes this claim.
  • Culture is critical
    :up:

    Okay, but back on Earth One, how will the well-organized/resourced "nefarious few" (most of whom are anonymous, even secretive) be "removed" – not replaced – by the hyper-divided-n-controlled, scarcity-wired, "many"?
  • Culture is critical
    “It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” ~Mark Twain

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair

    "It's easier to imagine the end of ]the world than the end of capitalism." ~Mark Fisher

    The removal of money as a means of exchange and the removal of the money trick and religion, as the main means by which a nefarious few, can gain control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people.universeness
    Short of total armageddon – in this scarcity-driven global civilization, my friend – how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" (from Glasgow to Guangzhou, Brooklyn to Benin, Tel Aviv to Tazmania) by a 24/7 global, virtual menagerie of various hedonic treadmills schemes from cradle to grave? :chin:
  • What is freedom?
    Freedom is optimal agency (i.e. antifragility) via solidarity against structural exploitation of stakeholders (them, many) by shareholders (us, few) that is policed by modes of systemic discrimination against (divide-n-control of) non-compliant stakeholders et al.