Death mostly harms those who are left to pick up the pieces. The dead are no more, so "harm" is meaningless for them.

I seem to have misinterpreted your OP. Sorry.

or is the only ironic thing that what I hold to be true and expect others to find meaningful to be summarily dismissed as nonsense? — introbert

I'm not sure I would use the word "irony" here. You seem to ask why others don't find meaning in an activity or an idea that is meaningful for you. An answer is not easily forthcoming and requires an honest appraisal of why it holds this status for you.

Sometimes a person finds something meaningful at the origins of a social trend, and as time progresses others do as well. That fortunate set of circumstances held for me sixty years or so ago, and an activity I championed then in relative solitude now has perhaps seven or eight million participants in the USA and many more overseas. Partly it's being convinced of its value no matter what others might think and partly it's reading the tea leaves.

On the other hand, as a mathematician, the subject path I took has held wonderful meaning for me over the years - but not at all for others. Merely one of tens of thousands low ranking topics on Wikipedia. You win and you lose. That's life. :cool:

If gravity isn't actually a force and it curves space but . . . — TiredThinker

I'm uncertain about space but spacetime is curved in appropriate metrics. The simple Euclidean metric is not one of them. Apokrisis could explain this better.

By an overwhelmingly astronomical prepondance of the evidence in the Hubble volume, this universe is apparently "fine-tuned" for lifelessness. — 180 Proof

:up:

Try existing on your own outside the boundaries of atmospheric Earth.

So, why would God bother to create an intricately fine-tuned universe for the sake of souls who don’t need one? — Art48

The real question here is whether arguments from medieval scholasticism are relevant today.

I guess I should reread the paper. — Srap Tasmaner

Same here. Reading it lightly didn't work for me.

In your case, your mental states are different when you are using the same terms, and they are referring to different things. — hypericin

Thanks. :ok:

This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation. — Yohan

Possibly, but that does not describe me, nor colleagues I have known over the years. Perhaps autistic mathematicians.

I miss the subtleties of arguments like this.

So, if I am talking with someone we may each use the same word or phrase in our discussion, unaware that we are talking about two different things. For instance, I may mention marveling at the smooth expertise of Olympic gymnasts, picturing men's gymnastics, and my friend agrees, thinking of women's gymnastics. This occurred recently, in fact. The nonsense of twin worlds isn't necessary.

Please explain where I go wrong. :chin:

Welcome. What are you studying? — Xtrix

From her bio page:

I'm a physics MS (soon PhD) student with an interest in philosophy.

Good to have another physicist onboard. Helps to keep the philosophers of science here honest. :cool:

In a sense it might be. There seems to be a correlation between time and motion. It could be that motion relative to two or more objects generates time. Special relativity shows how relative motion affects measurements of time - and time might be only measurements.

Thanks for posting a non-religious, non-political, non-racial thread that is intriguing. :cool:

:up:

I noticed that the most down to earth, scientific minds I've met avoid metaphysical topics like the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc. Since they don't have spiritual or religious believes, thinking about it leads to emptiness, so they simply avoid it and focus on the moment. — Skalidris

More likely, they have more to their lives than mooning over imponderables.

See you in the Lounge.

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason to think that. — Relativist

That says it in a nutshell. From Wiki:

Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski

After lunch everyone laughed at Fermi's outburst, Where is everybody!?

Famous scientists can be sophomoric just like amateur philosophers on TPF.

As usual, an excellent analysis.


The use of numbers and infinities seems to create confusion. Even the use of the word "derive" is a bit problematic. Are you speaking of the derivation of concepts or of physical processes that demonstrate cause/effect, or both?

Long story short, there are no singularities in "science", as understood as verifiable facts, but they only appear in mathematical models — boethius

:up:

Singularities are categorized in complex analysis. Some are quite tame and easily"fixed", others can be bizarre to the point of reaching beyond one's imagination. Victor Toth addressed this issue on Quorum recently.

You mean like we're supposed to pass on the baton to a better version of ourselves? — Agent Smith

:rofl:

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, where science goes to die — T Clark

Accompanied by its handmaiden mathematics. :roll:

Welcome aboard. There are several physicists on TPF but they like to cloak themselves in dark matter. :cool:

You have supplied a pretty good answer to your own question. Welcome to the forum. :cool:

Persist living. When my mother reached her 80s her eyesight came back after a lifetime of needing glasses. I was sure this was not the case, but the same thing happened to me. :smile:

It's interesting to read of the varying opinions of Talking to Oneself. It can be a sign of oncoming dementia - or not. I've always done math by either talking with others or talking to myself, arguing both sides of an issue. As for children, they are encouraged to read aloud to themselves and others initially, but to do so as one matures is discouraged. We are taught to not utter the words we read, but doing so may help retain memories.

This is painful to watch.

Is the Marvel_DC thrill ride more about the ears than the eyes? — ucarr

Not when it's Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. :cool:

I like the idea of teaching Magick in public schools, but would prefer students are taught the possibility of truth behind different ways of interpreting the world rather than being taught magick per se. — intrapersona

I'd love to see a proposed course outline for this. Especially if one went per se. Perhaps there's a Schaum's Outline on Thelema.

Part II, "Magick (Elemental Theory)," deals with the accessories of ceremonial magick in detail. Subjects include: the temple, the magick circle, the altar, the scourge, dagger, and chain, the holy oil, the wand, cup, sword, pentacle, lamp, crown, robe, book, bell, lamen, and the Magick Fire (including the crucible and incense). This section also includes an "Interlude", which is a humorous exposition on the magical interpretations of popular nursery rhymes, such as Old Mother Hubbard and Little Bo Peep.

What academic discipline would be pushed aside or reduced to make way for this new material? :chin:

Are there many physicists in here? — TiredThinker

They show up from time to time. Kenosha Kid was one. I suspect Pie is one. I'm guessing apokrisis is a biophysicist. There are probably a few more lurking behind their avatars.

Then this adds to my skepticism regarding a modal logic path towards it. — universeness

"Possibly" in current math would be a conjecture. It would go nowhere logically by itself. "Believe" really would be nonsense in mathematics.

Do you think there is credence in the proposal that there WILL BE a time in the future when a human, a transhuman or a non-human system will be declared as omnimathematical and have some accompanying proof from first principles based on modal logic? — universeness

The words "omniscience" and "God" are not in my vocabulary normally. Initially I would have thought that modal logic had no place in the mathematics I have known, but I see according to page views on Wiki it is popular and there is something called "multiverse set theory", so I guess I was wrong. There are now so many mathematical topics I can no longer even pretend to define what "mathematics" is.

To me, philosophy is about speaking, writing, working with the tool of language. Mysticism has always seemed more actual experiencing. Doing rather than saying.

Might I be God?

No, you may not.

I believe jgill is a mathematician but is he the best mathematician that has ever existed in human history? — universeness

:rofl:

Medieval scholasticism seems to creep back into the present, where it rubs shoulders with quantum mysticism.

Charming, the moderator involved could have at least told me they had done so and told me why. — universeness

Same thing happened to me some time back. I started a thread of whether mathematics could be considered racist, based upon changes advocated in California that seemed to imply just that. Zip, gone. But I quickly found it here in the lounge where it quickly expired. This is where threads go to die.

↪jgill
Not at all a priori. Just terminological assumptions. — Banno

When I see a philosophical thread with the words Omniscient or God, I wonder what a philosopher thinks when he sees a mathematical one with the word, infinity. :chin:

That to know something is to believe it follows from the Theaetetus portrayal of knowledge as true belief with an account — Banno

A priori underlying the arguments in the thread then.

What they all have in common is that they are not actual paradoxes because they are based on arbitrary and inexistent elements and/or facts. — Alkis Piskas

Yes

1. Knowledge entails belief. In other words, if I know p then I believe p. — Michael

Prima facie, this seems ridiculous. I know Crowley's religion , Thelema, but I do not believe it. I must be missing the subtlety. I haven't read the entire thread; the symbolism seems alien which demonstrates the fact that mathematicians don't have to be logicians. We operate at a much more humble level.

Can't ideas be stolen from forums? — TiredThinker

Many instances they can't be given away. :cool: