Thank you, Christian, but I'm not into the Bartering apps thing. At 83, I still sometimes marvel at lights going on at the flick of a switch.

I've been writing about Universal Basic Income for almost 4 decades now...from long before it became a popular thing.

Gonna happen, but like you, I'm not sure when. — Frank Apisa

It was more or less prophesied in Revelation (the book). Many attribute the bad economy is due to a lack of work ethic, but automation and globalization played a huge part. Like you said its a matter of X time.

Aristotle predicted this problem in the 4th bc century. The greeks invented toy steam engines and Aristotle predicted such things would put his slaves out of work. My problem with universal basic income is first, is people who view this as theft would get violent, and two the government could justify making a sort of pseudo religion since they are the ones dispensing the goods. All in all after X time i think universal basic income will happen, i just don't know if it will be 1 year or 500 years away.

I believe the solution is modernized significantly reduced zoning laws, Sub-blue laws and electric trike lanes. There are also various bartering apps being developed out there and atleast some of them use data mining and artificial intelligence to make them work. I can send you the article on one of these bartering apps if you would like.

i screwed up the definition of basicality. Considering the article has 10 words i'm not completely (completely) familiar with, i would have to say that the belief in gods/god is not a basicality. I could look up the definitions but that would be alot of work.

I would argue the belief in gods or a god is a basicality mainly because to get large groups of people to work together you need a false belief or perhaps a real belief such as Noah Harrari talked about in "Sapiens". Have you heard of "Pascal's Wager"? As to whether there is some sort of supernatural force out there, i would argue thats a matter of personal experience and considering the dark world we live in i could imagine why many would say there is not.

For most of the statistics you just put up they have risen dramatically since the 1950s. For most of those with the exception of suicide the rate has grown dramatically since the 1950s.

This free online encyclopedia has achieved what Wikipedia can only dream of

What's your favourite article?
— Banno

Mine is "The reason why limp social questions without philosophical content or argument pass for thought-provoking opening posts which would normally be required to have a philosophical content, inviting debate."

You should read it, Banno. — god must be atheist

ROFL!

When was US society at its best? 2000 when the suicide rate was at its lowest? — Michael

2000 was a better year. Are you aware of the very high rate of pedaphilia that we live? Rape is also as high if not higher than any other period. I guess you don't think abortion is a big deal? Think of all those aborted female babies that can't grow up and have abortions themselves. And oh yes most Mothers would prefer for some complete stranger to murder their child than for him/her to commit suicide themselves. Some of yall paint yourselves as caring but that very often is not the case.

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society. — god must be atheist

If suicide does increase, any person who understands the way Mother's react to such things would understand where i am coming from. Most Mothers would prefer their child to die from some stranger than to die from suicide. Based on the above response below, you appear to be quite the snob.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you.
— christian2017

I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?

If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.

It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently. — Xtrix

I'm on a spectrum? Which ones are you referring too? Were all on various spectrums. Do you work in retail or food service? I can understand why you would hate capitalism in that case. However i feel embracing socialism would piss off those who feel they are fiscally conservative but in reality are not fiscally conservative. And i used the word absolute along with free market because you don't seem to think that the free market concept can be put on a spectrum.

The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time and i wouldn't assume abortion doesn't count towards a high death rate.
— christian2017

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society. — god must be atheist

if you say so. I would argue being complacent about suicide shows a lack of concern for others.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. I have to leave in 10 minutes.

When was US society at its best? 2000 when the suicide rate was at its lowest? — Michael

In terms of economic growth and general happiness, yeah placing it in the year 2000 would be fair as a starting point to a discussion would be fair.....

When wasn't it shit? — Michael

i have to head out soon so i'll respond back later. The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time and i wouldn't assume abortion doesn't count towards a high death rate.

How full is your belly and how safe do you feel? We are nice to each other when our bellies are full and we feel safe. Hunger and insecurity lead to a very different consciousness and therefore different behaviors. When we are hungry enough, parents begin leaving their children in the forest to fend for themselves. We are wrong to take our civility for granted. But this is different from the point of the prison experiment.

The behavior of the prisoners and the behavior of the guards was the result of how each reacted to the other. As Trump seems to become increasingly an egomaniac to some, we might want to be aware of what happens when a person has more and more power. Any of us would loose a sense of boundaries if we began to think nothing stood in our way of getting want we want. We should be careful about electing rich people who understand power, but not boundaries, for they become tyrants and threaten democracy and sometimes the world.

On the other hand, the prisoner's experience is one of powerlessness. If I can't even use the toilet without your permission, pleasing you will become very important to me, and if you do not have very strong moral standards and boundaries, you will react to the signals of my powerlessness as your power, just like Trump. It is an interaction between the powerful and powerless that drives each into more extreme behaviors.

Good gravy, :yikes: I am now thinking the democrat and republican parties look like the prison experiment. — Athena

oh ok.

Maybe. But I've found that acid, in reasonable doses (& with the right set & setting) is relatively gentle, sometimes even gently cathartic. Honestly, a short plane-flight does me worse. (that said, I have difficulty with even the smallest amounts of THC, while others don't blink an eye. who knows how this stuff works.) — csalisbury

I'm certainly not against drugs. I've never done acid, and have no idea of what it feels like or how it would hurt or help a person with a given condition. I'm guessing you don't just like to stick to just weed or alcohol? When i say i'm not against drugs and alcohol, what i mean by that is drugs are for poor and depressed people but at the same time they should be used with extreme caution. Proverbs chapter 1 and chapter 31.

Since my teenage years, I've dealt with a vague smear of mental illness related problems. Also, since my childhood years, I've always had a streamlined persona that's engineered, in part, to deflect questions ('nothing to see here'.) These two things have been in conflict for a while. Part of the problem is that the latter thing takes automatic control when I'm with strangers (in psychiatric jargon, I never 'present' with what I'm actually dealing with.) Beckett: '“I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.”

No matter what's going on, I can retain the polite, rational view and doctors tend to draw it out of me. And I get that - from my short stints in mental institutions, I've seen that there are loads of people suffering way worse than me and with way fewer resources. If I automatically speak calmly and reasonably, then it make sense to discharge me and free up a bed for someone who is more clearly disorganized.

After a few rounds of that, I realized I'm going to have to take care of myself, and have done so. It's tricky, but I can mask my symptoms at work, and make it through. However there's one major symptom which I don't understand and can't find the resources to understand. I realize this isn't a medical forum, and big disclaimer, i'm not looking for any medical or pyschiatric advice, and won't take anything said as that - I'm just curious about any thoughts on this.

For about five years, I've had a pressure in my head. It's not a headache, it's not painful -tho it is uncomfortable. My awareness tends to focus on it, its drawn to it. It began as a vague pressure. In the past two years, its felt more like a weird amorphous presence. It moves around, like a cloud. Sometimes it feels almost like a hand massaging my brain, in an uncomfortable way. Once, last year, I took acid, and watched big widescreen 4k nature videos with my roomate - I could feel this thing slowly dissolving, one piece at a time, but it was just the tip of whatever that iceberg is. A few pieces melted away, but most if it remained.

I'm aware this, like all spooky mental health stuff, is uncomfortable to talk about for others, and for me too. But I feel mostly sane and rational. I go to work, perform my job normally. I pay my bills. I can talk about a given subject normally, if that's what's asked. But this thing is always there, especially the last few years.

I would just live with it, only it seems to take up a lot of my awareness, and to be a block of some sorts. Whatever it is, it's severely impiging on my qualitity of life .

I guess I'm curious if anyone has heard of something like this, or has any ideas about what it is, or how to deal with it. I ingenously tried the psychiatric establishment, but it didn't work (even if that's my fault), and I'm not sure what else to do. — csalisbury

i'm not saying it is a hallucination in the strictest sense but it could be a tactile hallucination. You can get those in your head. technically the brain isn't supposed to feel (i'm not sure thats true nor sure how it could be true). Some people have unhealthy central nervous systems. Sometimes a lack vitamin B (there are atleast 12 types of vitamin B) will help an unhealthy nervous system. Zinc (i don't know how zinc effects women) can help men with various brain issues including an unhealthy central nervous system. What you might find is the vitamin B and various things that treat the unhealthy central nervous system might make you slightly more aware of your surroundings. The problem this awareness could snow ball and you might end up back in the hospital because of "too much information".

If you are unwilling to see a doctor about this issue, i would suggest you talk to an aunt or an uncle or even your parents.

I actually treat my former mental condition with tobacco. I smoke and use tobacco products continouously all day long. It actually allows me to keep a job without being tired all day. Many psychiatric medicines shorten your life in more ways than one, i see no problem tobacco considering i don't consider a lengthy life to be a blessing.

That is not it. I guess I failed to formulate the question properly.

The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent. There is no field of purple or substance of green. Therefore, we do not see colors, we "see" something else as colors. For example, colors could be mapped to magnetic density or electric voltage scales, or different orientation of molecules, or even symbols and numbers in some higher order representation mapping. — Zelebg

"The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent."

This is fun. You realize snakes see colors right? There are indirect ways of proving that. Perhaps we should argue that blue could be interpreted as red based on how the radio (eye is antenna and brain is the radio) (all communication devices whether passive or active have radios) wants to display the image. Perhaps the best way to look at it is, color is an enormous spectrum that can be modified with phase shift. Phase shift is taking a wave or a set of points that are plotted on a graph (not necessarily a set with a an easy to define pattern) and moving that whole set of points in either to the left or to the right. What this allows is for two different users (human and snake) to use the same colors to represent different light frequencies.

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats.
— christian2017

I really don't see the relevance of that remark. — Xtrix

Well i did state this earlier but: zoning laws need to be restructured.....

I say it because it's nonsense
— Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point.
— christian2017

What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence. — Xtrix

ok. I'm not reposting that part. Feel free to repost our conversation, other than that i don't give a shit.

China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters. — Xtrix

Its funny i thought i made this clear in previous posts. I actually do for the most agree with this paragraph. Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors.

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that?
— christian2017

I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.

Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with. — Xtrix

Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect).

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.

I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention. — Xtrix

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course. — Xtrix

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. Sub-Blue Laws, modernized significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes circumvent these problems. It can be extremely tedious to legislate a religious observance to morality. Dealing with mean bosses will always be a potential no matter who takes over.

I say it because it's nonsense — Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point.

All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention. — Xtrix

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats.

Let me rephrase. Electromagnetic waves are not colors. These waves are converted to electrical impulses in the eye before going into the brain. But electrical impulses are also not colors, and yet we report to see colors. Therefore, the question is why, and the answer is either:

a. we actually see colors (colors exist)
b. we only think we see colors (colors do not exist) — Zelebg

To rephrase my original response, colors need photons. Differing frequencies of different photons produce a different "sensation" to the human eye. Perhaps a more fruitful endeavor would be to go on www.webmd.com and find out all of the different parts of the human eye and also find out how modern medicine interprets how the human mind works. The study of the human brain is still to some extent in it is infancy.

Just in case you didn't know when light hits an object, if the object is blue the yellow and green waves are absorbed by the the object, the blue waves actually bounce off the object and hit the human eye. Its a gigantic geometrical calculation done by the human brain. A blue paint on the outside of the object makes the object blue.

All fetuses begin as female, and then, if it is supposed to become male, the body needs to be masculinized, as well as the brain. If something goes wrong with one or the other process or both or partially then you can imagine all the resultant special genders of LGBTQ. 'God'/Bible gets shown up again, as always. — PoeticUniverse

When the fetus is a single cell, i don't know what gender it is but if a penis hasn't grown yet(in the case of dna XY) does that mean its a women or just a eunuch. This whole argument seems trite and overly simplistic.

I'm currently reading a book on Human Nature, that raises the volatile question of Essentialism. I'm only superficially familiar with that worldview, which seems to go back at least to Plato's "Forms", and the "Kinds" of Genesis. Apparently, Essentialism was the default assumption of science up until Darwin's theory of evolution blurred the boundaries between Species (Kinds)*1.

After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious. But I suspect the topic may be vociferously debated among philosophers of various political & religious views. Non-philosophers may be expected to prefer a simple black or white scheme for Human Nature, but deeper thinkers tend to dissect their topics into smaller chunks, and into rainbow colors. Yet those fine distinctions are not so easily verified by evidence or by appeals to authority, hence leading to an infinite regression of unresolved debates.

The Human Nature controversy in recent years seems to be centered primarily on Gender issues. If God created Man & Woman for distinct roles in the world, then where do LGBTQ humans fit into the scheme of things? Are those who refuse to remain in their rigidly-defined physical and social niches, somehow defying the law of God? Even for those who are not concerned about the laws of God, what about violating the laws of Nature?

Although my moderate worldview does not divide the world into simplistic dualistic categories, it also can't abide the absurdity of infinite regression. So, before I bring my own Intrinsic Biases to this polarizing book, I'd like to see what others on this forum have to say about Essentialism in general, and Gender Categories in particular. :cool: — Gnomon

If you want to have a sex change to become a women or a man, first have an plastic surgery operation to become a frog (or something similar) and then lop off the penis or graft on a vagina and voila you now have become the opposite sex. Humans have XX, XY and XXY and also damaged or missing genitalia. The holy book i adhere to actually preaches that being a wierd dna or having fucked up genitalia usually means you are some super spiritual power house. On the XX, XY and XXY and ..... please let me know if i missed any.

The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has. — Xtrix

Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution.

I recall reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment by Phillip Zimbardo, in which if ordinary people, who are not necessarily "evil" or "sociopathic" were in certain situations, they might do evil things, such as torture inmates if instructed to do so by a perceived "authority" figure.

Supposedly there were exceptions, such as people motivated by a higher moral philosophy or purpose.

Generally, I'm against the notion of "anarchy", and I think there is enough evidence and legal and moral philosophy indicating that, at least some, would potentially act immoraliy in an anarchist scenario in which there was no centralized legal system

Most "anarchist" ideals are utopian, and would only "work" in small, voluntary groups of people with some measure of morality and respect for one another, but the overly "rosy" view of human nature which some anarchists and libertarians hold seems to be false (I do find the other misanthropic extreme, such as the Hobbsian view to be somewhat faulty as well; given that even before modern cultures and civilizations, there were men and women who helped to build civilization, law, and order to begin with, rather than act akin to "animals"; obviously Hobbes himself did not believe HE was low enough to act this way, he merely believed it about others he considered to be morally and intellectually inferior). — IvoryBlackBishop

I would imagine, even in a anarchist government, a subset of the population would rise up and become vigilantes and for lack of a better phrase "lynch mob justice". No offense intended, it just so happens to be an extremely common historical concept all through out history. Don't assume you know my ethnicity.

Hello, first thread here. You cant really get people to talk about philosophy on martial art forums or anime forums, so here i am. Nor is it easy to find people in this ignorant town i live in to have philosophical discussion.

Anyways, I just got done with my second reading of the republic. Anyways, plato mainly speaks of the ideals under the absolute of "good" and that they lead to a perfectly, united-absolute-oneness which he calls God. When he touches on their opposites he only goes so far as to show, essentially, the negative effects they have on your soul, not necessarily where those ideas lead-besides reincarnations into a more unreasonable state; Or why they even exist in opposition to the ideals.

If his god represents the absolute of the good and just, why does the bad and unjust exist? If his god was perfect, why would these opposing ideas exist? Is there an opposite God of evil?

This makes me think plato never completed his meditations which would have logically led him to the buddhist concept of the cycle of death and rebirth, where all of this good and bad are simply our own creations, which is a whole other discussion. — One piece

I don't like to answer these questions with a 3 page or 20 page answer, but i believe scientific determinism (nurture versus nature) determines all of our bad decisions, our future decisions are based on understanding our decisions and whether we understand scientific determisim. Whether we are born and reborn, is certainly a possibility on the table. My chosen religion doesn't require me to be 100% certain of anything.

How do you feel about Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes. Is socialism or approaching the threshold of socialism the only option? Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. They actually aid the future enslavement and (after X time) astronomical violence that will come upon America.

Has anyone ever heard of contraception, introspection, full suspension, and resurrection?

I have enjoyed both a promiscuous and a monogamous lifestyle, and I have to tell you: the monogamous is boring but safe and life is easier; the promiscuous is frought with adversity, instability, and money troubles, but it's infintely more exciting and enjoyable.

Yeah, you can find a partner whom you can trust and get to know, and while I don't condone hooking up for myself (I won't interfere with the choice by others for themselves), a serial monogamy is WAAAY preferable to a single long-term relationship. In serial, you can date as long as you find your partner exciting and vice versa. In marriage, in most of them, there is no sex to speak of after the fifth year. It is not exciting, you get so fucking incredibly bored with her or him, that you cringe even when they touch you or you touch them. And of course you fantasize about thy neighbour's ass.

For those who still can afford a choice, I suggest you go out and sow your wild oats, (without producing a baby, fer crying out loud), then when old age sets in and the cart of life gets too heavy to be pulled just by one person, then hook up with a contemporary of your age group, and waltz to the grave hand-in-hand. — god must be atheist

Actually that last paragraph actually makes somewhat sense. Considering our entire society has turned to shit, your words of wizdom actually make sense for our present time. To some degree even successfully married people could be put on that spectrum. How many people do you see out in public fit the category "i dealt with 1 ,2 ,3 ,50 bad people and now i'm going to die with the person who is sitting next to me who actually will put up with me". David had 8 wives and some people claim the only two people who loved him alot were Jonathan and Bathsheba. As far as i know Bathsheba was his last wife and Jonathan died a while before that.

Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool: — Gnomon

Alot of Pastors like to look hard core by rejecting "Once Saved, Always Saved". I believe this theology is the theology of the over 1500 laws, notions, and axioms of the new testament and old testament. If the modern Pastors are looking for saved people who have fallen short, they can look at themselves. The solution to true fiscal conservatism isn't the poor working harder but Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and (fuck the environment) electric trike lanes. Hell i don't have a strong opinion against gasoline powered go-karts either but i've never in my whole life seen that as a source of transportation absolutely anywhere.

No, relativity does not assume any of the questions that are at issue, such as whether the present is in some sense more "real" than the past or the future, or whether past, present and future tenses are objective properties and not merely indexical. Some argue that relativity makes anything but the block universe untenable, but not because that is already assumed by the theory.

To be clear, "block universe" in this context is not merely a visualization of the spacetime continuum (in Newtonian physics you can also visualize the space and time dimensions as a single block). Here it is a synonym for the B-theory of time or for eternalism, which are metaphysical positions. — SophistiCat

oh ok. I don't have a strong opinion at this point. To put it simply, i believe whatever form of block universe we live in, that scientific determinism determines all of our actions. Any future decisions are based on what we learned from our own actions or what we observed in the past. Some would say the past present and future exist all at one time, however i would say that all depends on "how big you are". This guy you are talking to exists now. Perhaps there are others on this forum who are "bigger".

I do, in general. For one thing, scientists rarely consider the same questions as philosophers. Their approach tends to be instrumentalist; excepting those few who work on foundations (which is widely considered to be a philosophical subject among scientists, and thus widely discouraged), they favor questions that can be resolved empirically, rather than through conceptual analysis or other approaches employed by philosophers. Nearly all the literature on this subject that I have come across was written by philosophers, many of whom understand the relevant science very well (for such general questions the scientific underpinnings aren't that difficult or esoteric). And scientists who do opine on philosophical questions are subject to the same competence limitations as other laymen. — SophistiCat

This is wishful thinking on your part. People like to watch movies but the reason Physicists typically stick to very slowly (using software) finding a more precise number to attach to an important variable, is that alot of the "fun" stuff ended with Einstein. Einstein was a genius but as time progresses, the type of work that has to get done in a given field of study changes.

Laying my own cards on the table, I am not a proponent of either A- or B-theory, eternalism, presentism or possibilism; rather, I suspect that there isn't a substantive difference between them. But I've only dipped my toes into this subject on occasion, so I haven't made up my mind. — SophistiCat

I tend to towards the threshold of eternalism (to my understanding of eternalism). However i see the universe as just a collection of objects and particles (with a "web" of emotions going through it to put it overly simple). When particles move the only way to measure that movement accurately (in terms of speed as opposed to angles and geometry) is within a small subset of the universe (a given area of space). The only way to go back in time is to place each particle back in the same position only relative to the other particles as it was in that remembered time in the past. The vectors or paths of motion also have to be exactly the same. Our memories are extremely rough notions of what the past really was given all the variables involved in solidying exactly what the past was.

So a presentist walks into a spacetime bar, and the wormhole behind the counter asks: "Why so tense?"

This is a split of a side discussion in another thread (starting here), which I thought merits its own topic. I will just quote from some posts and continue here.

Some background: — SophistiCat

"We can't see this block, we're not aware of it, as we live inside the cement of spacetime. And we don't know how big the block universe we live in is: "We don't know if space is infinite or not. Or time - we don't know whether it has a beginning or if it will have an end in the future. So we don't know if it's a finite chunk of spacetime or an infinite chunk."

thats a quote from:
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time

Time can never be measured exactly (or to be more precise, universally) because time is effected by the speed the measuring device is traveling at(clock). I read the book "a brief history of time". Because nothing ever exceeds speed C, to put it simply the various vectors of the whole of an object, slow down so that the combination of the vectors never exceed C.

To my limited understanding, Einstein based his theory of Relativity on the idea that we live in a block universe. I don't know if this belief has changed alot in the past 100 years or not. Nor do i even know if that first statement in this paragraph is valid. I'll read those 3 articles later.

I skimmed that article. I'm not sure the comment about the bread and the wine is true. Without going into a 20 page paper on why Calvinism isn't as bad as it seems, i'll say this. If a person realizes the realities of scientific determinism and is also drawn to that loving Jesus from Isaiah chapter 53 and chapter 54 (and new testament), why not do a quick conversion over to christianity. Easy Believism is very very very Biblical. From a christian who embraces science and logic, i don't know how that christian would reject scientific determinism.

The Bible actually does teach the earth is very old. A catholic bishop came up with that 6000 year number. Genesis chapter 2 (New Arabic Version, KJV, ESV and Hebrew.

"back in my Yom we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes"

FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd: — Gnomon

Most newagers each differ slightly from each other. Until you write a holy book to go along with your dogma, not alot of people will care about your dogma.

Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls — Gnomon

I could post a series of articles about the logic and even mercy associated with predestination. But I'll say two things. If you have a sexual predator that has repented and come to salvation, it would make him feel better to know the logic and also reality that the particles bouncing in his head decided his terrible choices. He was 100% predictable.

What many people don't realize is their snobbery and inconsistent thinking is very often nearly (nearly but not quite) as bad as the sexual predators. "don't strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". sprectrum

On a different note if i came to realize the reality and logical way of thinking behind why intelligent people accept scientific determinism and at the same time through pascal's wager (among other great reasons), i came to know that Jesus Christ predicted everything, why not "choose" to accept Jesus Christ at that point.

That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices. — Gnomon

The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. Methodist, Calvinist, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcapaliiiiaaaaaaaan, and even to some extent Catholicism and also a lengthy list of others all fall well within the Pail of Orthodoxy. I didn't make that term up, its a real term that can be researched.

True, but teaching them Christianity was a first step in seeing them as human, so the first abolitionists were Christian missionaries and members of sects that prohibited slave ownership (like Methodists). — frank

As a christian i see this as a huge plus but i don't feel anyone should feel obligated to live a long long life of crap just to meet some non Biblical theological standards in order to "maintain their salvation