On the finite number line, — jgill

The finite number line is a fiction. It may be useful for some things, but to insist that it is somehow 'real' and try to make meaningful inferences from that is meaningless.

What, for you, is indubitable? — A Seagull
Notice the "for you"?

That's there because one chooses what to believe, and hence what to doubt.

Here again is the oft ignored distinction between what is true and what is believed. — Banno

And what is that distinction?

What do you believe to be true?

Energy is like money... it makes the world go around.

Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic. — A Seagull
I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement. — Harry Hindu

I don't know either! I think it must be a typo for 'meaning'.

↪A Seagull Why would that be? You have a model of the moon, and then there is the actual moon itself. — Syamsu

The 'actual moon itself' only exists as part of the model.

↪A Seagull Uh, you know the distinction between a model of something, and what it is a model of. — Syamsu

oh I see. But then you have no means of comparing your 'facts' with 'what the facts are about'
. For all you have is the model.

In actuality the signalling of virtue requires a halo, not a face mask.

↪A Seagull To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. — Syamsu

What is the difference between a 'fact' and 'what a fact is about'? And how can the two be compared?

A fact is verifiable from the available data, an opinion is not.

The law is a 'fact', the opinion of an 'expert' is an 'opinion'. — A Seagull
I'd say the law is subject to interpretation. Wo while the text of the law is a fact, the rules that the text establishes aren't — Echarmion

Absolutely.

If A is on B then B is under A
X is on drugs
Drugs is under X. — A Seagull
You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean. — Harry Hindu

Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic.

Is the law credible, or is it just the law? Otherwise I see a lot of criminals deserving freedom - perhaps even compensation. — remoku

The law is a 'fact', the opinion of an 'expert' is an 'opinion'.

26

What I’ve always found interesting is when my high school textbooks always described light energy as having both particle and wave characteristics without ever explaining the reason for that. — Braindead

Photons and other fundamental particles including the electron and proton, exhibit behaviour that sometimes can best be described by waves eg diffraction, and sometimes as particles. eg the photoelectric effect. These characteristics are both seen in the famous 2-slit experiment, the results of which still confound scientists and philosophers. Perhaps the best overall model is that of a quantum wave.

A person is trapped in a facility desperate to escape. — Benj96

She should use her magic powers and escape.

How much of what has been written about philosophy is indubitable? — A Seagull
What would be the point of writing down what is indubitable, except as a jumping off point (like Descartes' cogito)? — SophistiCat

So others can learn?

↪A Seagull I mean logic by logic? Abstracted and applied.

All men are mortal.
I am a man.
I will die.

There are various logical schemes, but propositional logic doesn’t require application to the real world - meaning the nuances of semantics. In the purest state it is mathematical, whilst applied to statements the meaning of terms used has to be agreed upon. — I like sushi

As I see it, logic is the manipulation of symbols according to specified rules.

Its application to words or statements is somewhat haphazard. There is no logical rigour to it. And any logical rigour in the abstract system is lost when it is applied to words.

If A is on B then B is under A
X is on drugs
Drugs is under X.

A Seagull Logic. In practice not application. — I like sushi

What do you men by 'logic'?

And how do you differentiate between 'practice' and 'application'?

↪A Seagull
What makes philosophers interesting is that they are writing for themselves.
Once you start writing for other people, you become boring.
As it has been and will forever be. — Valentinus

Why should this be?

↪A Seagull

I found that quite thought provoking. Why is loathing not productive, except at least a starting point? — JoeyB

If it is considered that the loathing is likely to be long-term, as opposed to a starting point for understanding and ultimately acceptance, then it is sensible to distance oneself from that which one loathes and instead look for, and hopefully find, something that one loves.

Personally, I am doubtful of almost all of it. — A Seagull
I'm wondering if you had something specific in mind when you said "almost all of it". Or, perhaps you were meaning this in a more general way. — Statilius

I was thinking of things like "(I think therefore) I am", and : We create a model of the world , which is related to the phenomenon/numenon divide.

How much of what has been written about philosophy is indubitable?

What, for you, is indubitable? — A SeagullWell first, what do you mean by "undubitable"? — 180 Proof

From the internet : 'impossible to doubt; unquestionable."

PS The word is 'Indubitable'.

Why does it exist and why is it useful? — Harry Hindu

Statistics is a means by which large quantities of data can be succinctly summarised.

Anyone think I’m wrong about modern society (or agree)? — madworld

Loathing anything in the world is not productive, at least except as a starting point. One needs to understand and accept the world for what it is.

So I think I would like to start a discussion on just this topic. I think it could be fruitful. Would you be OK with that? --Best, Statilius — Statilius

Yes of course. I would be happy to discuss it, I would be interested to know what others think on the topic.

Though many of these works may deal directly with believing lies, it strikes me that the cause(s) of human suffering may not be fully and adequately incorporated in the narrow concept of 'believing lies.' — Statilius

Yes it may be a bit of a simplification.

I just think back to times long ago, when people lived in small tribes of hunter-gatherers. I imagine that people in those times did not experience suffering of the soul, albeit they would have experienced hardship of the body. I imagine they would not have suffered angst over strictures that they 'should' do this and 'should not' do that. Simpler times for the soul.

philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul. — Statilius

Suffering of the soul is caused by believing lies. The task then of philosophy is to determine a process by which lies can be distinguished from truth. Admittedly no easy task.

I’d like to discover what differences people would find between “that which determines X” and “that which causes X”. — javra

You can either refer to a fantasy world where A does indeed cause (or determine) B.
Or otherwise if you want to refer to the 'real world' you will have to rely on statistics (and perhaps the inferred probability associated with those statistics.)

Is perception itself an error or assumption? — Benj96

Its an assumption.

So in what sense does it mean to say that 1,2,3... goes on ad infinitum? — Marchesk

Infinity just means 'without end'.

↪A Seagull
Counting is a temporal process. Two comes after one. Three comes after two. You cannot remove the temporal aspect of counting, to claim that time is irrelevant to counting. It is essential. Try counting when four comes before three. It doesn't work. — Metaphysician Undercover

Pure maths is entirely abstract. You are conflating pure maths with applied maths. Numbers in pure maths do not require counting.

Much of the problems of the foundations of mathematics are caused by the failure to distinguish between pure and applied maths, all too often the two are conflated as though there is some God-given connection between the two.

Other problems ar3e caused by considering that axioms and theorems are two distinct entities, when in fact one runs into the other. ie a theorem can be used as an axiom. or 2+2=4 can be considered to be axiomatic.

Also maths might be less confusing to philosophers if they stuck to numbers in base 1 instead of base 10.

It requires an infinity of time to count an infinity of numbers, so "counting infinity" does have something to do with time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot count an infinity of numbers, so time has got nothing to do with it.

I watched this youtube vid recently. You might like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

The soul more or less means the totality of all emotions throughout life, as a whole. — Syamsu

Your definition of soul is quite different from what I found on the internet: 'the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.'

Perhaps you could call your 'totality of emotions .. etc' something else.

Let me throw in another question: how does philosophy differ from "thinking" generally? Or does it? — Xtrix

It is generally more structured than general thinking. Also being a conversation, communication is required and hence the extensive use of words and language.

Philosophy is a conversation. Its purpose is to stimulate thought.

The only philosophies that can be harmful are those that are based on lies but claimed to be true.

So, it's like a delusion, plain and simple? — Shawn

Were you referring to my post? not sure....

What is a delusion?

If you want to go down that path, then life itself is a delusion ... and certainly truth is a delusion.

What do you understand solipsism to mean? — QuixoticAgnostic
https://www.google.com/search — Shawn

"the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."

How does one stop being a solipsist once one? — Shawn

It is quite easy really. Once you know that your self exists, you can infer the existence of other things and people.

When people talk about suffering, I tend to think of the Emperor Penguin who lives in Antarctica where temperatures often reach -40 C; especially the male of the species... : This from Wikipedia..

After the female departs for the sea and the male takes charge of their egg, he spends the dark, stormy winter incubating the egg in his brood pouch, balancing it on the tops of his feet, for around 65-75 consecutive days until hatching. By the time the egg hatches, the male will have fasted for around 120 days since arriving at the colony.[65] To survive the cold and savage winds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph), the males huddle together, taking turns in the middle of the huddle.