Accepted, with all due respect to your humility.

Secondly, if you want to claim that mere logic tells us anything about the world, then provide an example. — Janus

As I said, I really don't know what you would mean by "mere logic". Human beings use logic, as a tool like S says, so there's no such thing as logic telling us something, we tell ourselves something with the use of logic.

Thirdly, when you say we can use logic to know about places we haven't been that would, if anything, only tell us what kinds of things we could possibly experience if we were there. It tells us about the forms our experiences could take, not about their content. And it cannot tell us anything about whether, as per the example, a rock is there when no one is around. — Janus

And I don't understand how you use "content" here. In such an experience, logic would be the "content". If you were at the place, your perceptions would form the content. In neither case would the supposed object being perceived, be the content of the experience.

The world is such that it is of certain ways, and we use logic to find out these certain ways. A rock is a certain length, and we use a ruler to find out this certain length. — S

You still do not seem to be grasping the reality of the temporal aspect of the world. The world is changing from one moment to the next. If the world is "a certain way", then it can only be that way for a moment in time, and at the next moment it will be another way. Due to the nature of passing time, and possibility, how the world will be at the next moment is always uncertain. So if the world was a certain way in the last moment, and how it will be in the next moment is uncertain, then at the present it is something between being in a certain way, and being in an uncertain way, or both, or some such thing. However, this is unacceptable according to the law of excluded middle. So to avoid this problem we ought not even talk about "the world" as if "it is of certain ways". Such talk only creates a situation in which the fundamental laws of logic are violated.

I still see consciousness as being in separable from the objects of consciousness that we call the world. But we cannot reduce the world to 'mind' any more than we can reduce mind/consciousness to the objects it experiences. I would say they are mutually interdependent modes of being.

A.) It can still be said, and unknowingly be true.
B.) There's an issue about what makes something knowledge, and what's reasonable. But there's a separate issue about what is or isn't true. And these issues seem to be getting a little muddled. — S

A’) It can still be said is the epitome of speculation. While it is true such speculation can be unknowingly true, because it is speculation, at the time of speculation, that which is being said has equal opportunity of being unknowingly false. If the speculation rests right there, at merely being said, it is impossible to determine which it is.
B’) It is NOT a separate issue. Unknowingly true makes explicit the truth is NOT known as such. It’s right there in the language. The only possible way to prevent an unknown from being false is to KNOW it is impossible for it to be false and the only way for it to be impossible to be false is for it to be.......well....known to be true.
————————-

believing that there would be a rock is the best explanation, then why shouldn't I believe that there would be a rock? Why wouldn't that be what's reasonable to believe? — S

That’s perfectly agreeable, but it is not what you said.

you can't recognise the reasonableness in my argument that rocks would exist, — S

To be is to be and that’s that, is what you said about rocks post-human. Rocks before means rocks after, without regard to any other conditions. Period. That’s that. I didn’t recognize the reasonableness of the argument because the reasoning is irrational, insofar as no room is allowed for explanatory or logical alternatives.
——————————-

I'm a rational agent. — S

You admit to being a rational agent but deny your idealism. There is no philosophy that allows that, except.......an extreme empiricist. But if you were an extreme empiricist, you wouldn’t know enough to know because you could not possibly explain certain aspects of human cognition by means of mere brain states. Not at this time in our intellectual development anyway. Which includes you and me and everybody else. So you could speculate about it and might even be unknowingly correct. We’ll just never know about it.
——————————-

If you think that I would need to actually be in the scenario, then that's where these problems of yours stem from. — S

You ARE in it, however indirectly. Hence my reference to “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Einstein’s thought experiment, just like yours, presupposes a third party observer, separate from the participants in the experiment. Because the experiment had to come from somewhere, the experiment requires an observer outside a world, seeing that world with no observers of its own. You, as the presupposed third party, then demand the missing observers make a determination about the world they no longer inhabit, which is necessarily different than yours as the outside observer. Such requirement is irrational.
———————————-

But there are rational agents. And we can speculate. — S

Not in the experiment there aren’t; you got rids of us an hour ago. You’re still on the outside looking in, forcing your perspective on those not even there. There is no rational agent in it, but there absolutely must be a rational agent because of it.

Otherwise, in general, of course there are rational agents, and they do speculate.
———————————-

If you were to take everything that we've speculated to date, then how would you know that it contains not a shred of truth? How could you know that? — S

I know speculation contains not a shred of truth iff I know the speculation has been proven false.
————————————

If you fail this test, then your position is untenable. — S

What we know about rocks historically can pertain to what we think of rocks in the future, but how we came to our knowledge historically cannot obtain in the future. In one word...experience. Even if we don’t experience rocks historically, we experience the remnants of their existence and deduce factual, that is to say, non-contradictory, information therefrom. If we’re not around, we have no experience, hence no knowledge can be given from experience we don’t have. Claiming we don’t know enough to claim facts about the future is not an untenable position.
————————————-

realism has the lead in the poll for both Part 1 & Part 2, although it is tied with idealism in Part 2. — S

Might wanna re-think that.
————————————

It is concerning that out of 11 people, there are so many idealists. Don't they realise that idealism is a load of bollocks? Why is it so popular — S

It’s not a matter of being popular; it’s a matter of being absolutely necessary. If you think, you’re a idealist of some kind, in some degree. It is not enough to claim intelligence is nothing but brain states without explaining how such is necessarily the case at the exclusion of any other possibility. Idealism DOES explain how, and not at the expense of empiricism but in conjunction with it, and even if it is wrong, empiricism in and of itself as yet has no means to refute it.

Either get used to it, or convince yourself you think about the world as it actually is.

Intervention?

. Rocks before means rocks after, without regard to any other conditions. Period. That’s that. I didn’t recognize the reasonableness of the argument because the reasoning is irrational, insofar as no room is allowed for explanatory or logical alternatives. — Mww

S continues in refusing to recognize the true nature of temporal existence. Human beings are living at the present, and there is a fundamental difference between past and future which makes the present a real temporal perspective, and change a reality. But this fundamental difference, and the reality of change, denies the possibility of making the deductive conclusion that what has been in the past, will be in the future.

First, I was leaving the argument with that as the major premise to you because you brought it up, and second, I don’t think S is ready to accept the absolute ideality of time with respect to human experience.

Still, scientists nowadays are attributing to time a reality most philosophers are reluctant to admit. Hell, they’ve even made it a dimension, of all things. Can you believe it????

”Incorrect. I explained the difference in the text that followed what you quoted from me above. You left out that part.
.
I refer you to that part of my post. …the part that spoke of why we usually know what someone means, but why the terms “Real”, “Exist” and “There is” are different in that regard.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You said that we usually know what people mean when they use terms in context. I used terms in context.

.
We learn English in physical context. We don’t learn English from dictionaries. Something is being used, something is being pointed-to or picked up. Some action is done or demonstrated while being referred-to.
.
Then, based on the words we know in that way, other words can be defined, by parents, teachers, or dictionary.
.
No, you didn’t use “There is…” in physical context.
.
…or specify any context.
.
You didn’t say in what context you’re asking about the rock’s existence. You just said “Would there be that rock”. How can you call that “in context”??
.
It’s that context-less usage whose meaning is undefined. …as if it means something to speak of some absolute existence.
.
You didn’t answer my question about what “Exist”, “There is…”, and “Real” mean, when used unqualified, without specified context.
.
By the way, if you’d said “Would that rock still be part of the physical world that it was part of before everyone died?”, then your question would mean something, and would have an answer: “Yes”. The rock would still be part of that physical world, and the existence of both would remain as undefined as it was before everyone died.
.

Therefore, what I meant is something which is usually understood. You're either an exception to your own rule or you're just pretending.

.
This discussion is testament to the understanding of what I asked. Most, if not all, other people understood what I meant. That's why we're having a discussion about it, instead of everyone just responding like, "What? I have no idea what you just asked", as though I was speaking in my own made up gibberish.

I didn’t say that you made up the gibberish. I merely said that it’s gibberish.
.

Look at how many people voted in the poll. Would you vote in a poll when you had no idea what it was asking?

You keep falling back on, resorting to, a census.
.
Since the time of the Greeks, Western philosophy (those “footnotes to Plato”) has gotten nowhere (in spite of a few exceptional comments from Faraday and Tegmark, who weren’t academic philosophers).
.
People say things whose meaning they can’t specify, and then wonder why they’re confused.
.
Wasn’t it Chalmers, who pointed out a lack of progress, and suggested that there’s no reason to believe that things will be any different in the coming centuries?
.

”You really need to spend a bit more time checking what you’ve written before you post it.
.
Yes, you asked if there would be that rock.
.
Does it occur to you that your question about “Would there be…” used the interrogative conditional form of “There is…”? “— Michael Ossipoff
.
And...?

.
And you’d just claimed that you didn’t use “There is…”.
.
You used it.
.

What's this supposed problem you're having with understanding what I asked?

.
Your failure to define your terms that need defining in order to have a meaning.
.
Words describing things that can be pointed-to in physical context have known meaning without verbal definition in terms of other words.

Unqualified “Exist”, “There is…”, and “Real” aren’t such words.

Why shouldn't I believe that you're feigning ignorance, when that's what the evidence suggests?

Because of your failure to define your terms.
.

Why shouldn't I believe that you're just dancing around the real issue about whether or not there would be a rock?

.
See above.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
9 W

First, I was leaving the argument with that as the major premise to you because you brought it up, and second, I don’t think S is ready to accept the absolute ideality of time with respect to human experience. — Mww

I wouldn't accept the absolute ideality of time either. But S claims that the measurement of time, "an hour" in the op, could occur without a human being to measure it.

Still, scientists nowadays are attributing to time a reality most philosophers are reluctant to admit. Hell, they’ve even made it a dimension, of all things. Can you believe it???? — Mww

Dimensions though, are just standards of measurement. The convention is to assume a line as one dimension, and then construct other dimensions with right angles. Time is added as a fourth dimension to account for movement within the three assumed spatial dimensions. But it is not necessary to use any particular number of dimensions, as an infinity of them can be conceived.

First, @Mww, this is interesting to me, so I hopefully I am not too annoying :grimace:

Depends on your philosophical preference. It is usually considered irrational to claim a truth that is technically merely a possibility. — Mww

Even if the possibility is far north of 99.99%?

Outside of philosophy circles, it is usually considered irrational to say "the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a possibility." Most people upon being asked, "are you sure" would then respond with, "well, yeah, sure it's possible, but it's a bit ridiculous." Now obviously your opinion on the subject is far more informed and therefor carries more weight, but I think that your use of "irrational" seems biased. Don't the Christians think we are all irrational?

Depending on your philosophical preference, couldn't somebody view everything as mere possibility?
Even math, for example: 2 + 2 =4
Well then how come 2 kilograms + 2 grams does not equal 4 kilograms or 4 grams? Isn't that one possibility of how one could interpret 2+2=4?

Heck, I just spent a whole thread arguing that definitions can be counted as objective facts. So they would have argued that this

We have knowledge our sun is a star, stars are known to supernova — Mww

is subjective and can't be known for certain. Luckily, you don't have to convince me.

To say an event will occur implies the negation is impossible. — Mww

Not in common language? "I am going to the store tomorrow." " I will be there at 5pm." "See you later." Not once, not one single time, have I ever been corrected for one of these phrases, and not once did someone say I broke a promise (in case you want to say those count as promises not a statement that an event will occur). I am not saying you don't have a point, but I am very confused as to how it matters?

In relation to us all being in the matrix (or something) you said,

My position is, it doesn’t matter. If we are, we always were, so nothing’s any different than we’ve already seen. If we suddenly discovered we were, that’s a whole different story. — Mww

THIS SEEMS IMPORTANT. What you stated above, I agree with. And I am fairly sure that @S has admitted that is fine also. So what are we all disagreeing about? We (I think we) acknowledge your position is possible, just meaningless. For me it seems similar to the free will argument. I find there are important implications attached to admitting it is possible we do not have free will. But, how often does it come up that we actually need to consider whether we acted out of free will or not?

We know from the past what it’s like out there without humans, so speculation about the future without humans can be reasonable. — Mww

Hasn't S been arguing the whole time that life after humans will be the same as life before?

All future thought, that is, thinking in the future, is indeed meaningless to us in the present, yes.
As I said, THAT I will think tomorrow, all else being equal, is most probable, but it is impossible to claim as true WHAT I will think tomorrow. — Mww

I think I see our problem. I think every time you use the word "true", you mean something like "it can only be that way 100% of the time in any situation that anyone can conceive of" which I will think rarely occurs (I would say definitions and math is about it - language itself creates ambiguities, and even witnessed events go through an interpreting agent). However, when S or I (or most people out there that do not know the philosophical word idealist) use the word, we just mean "true enough for all practical purposes."

I guess, my question would be, what are the possible harms that could be caused by us summarizing the "truth" in this way?

And apologies to @S if I misrepresented your view in any way.

Say what???? You must be WAAAYY undercover not to accept the ideality of time. All the cool kids are doin’ it, doncha know. (Kidding.....it’s a tough pill to swallow)

Dimensions though, are just standards of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is that what they’re calling it these days? Height, width, length, seconds, light years, dimensions? I’m too old-fashioned for that, I guess; to me dimensions are what make standards of measurement possible.

A’) Consider the rest of what I said: speculate from knowledge vs speculate from belief. We know from the past what it’s like out there without humans, so speculation about the future without humans can be reasonable. Simple: there will be a whole lot more buildings and a whole lot less forest. — Mww

So you agree that it's reasonable to believe that there would be a rock, but you don't agree that we know this? If so, I think this is because you set the bar higher than I do for knowledge, and I think that you don't need to do so. It's reasonable to say that we know that there would be a rock. Knowledge doesn't require certainty or whatever super strict criteria you're setting. You're basically creating problems for yourself. TheMadFool was doing the same thing earlier.

I don't know why yourself and others don't think about this more practically, in terms of how we speak about knowledge, and what criteria work best in representing how we speak, and suchlike. The irony here is that you seemed to be trying to argue the merits of what's practical earlier, in a different context.

B’) All future thought, that is, thinking in the future, is indeed meaningless to us in the present, yes.
As I said, THAT I will think tomorrow, all else being equal, is most probable, but it is impossible to claim as true WHAT I will think tomorrow. — Mww

So it's not true that you'll think about what to have for dinner tomorrow, even if you interpret that statement in a practical way with implicit qualifications? Or you're merely saying that it's not true if you interpret it in a wrongheaded way that results in a falsehood? Which is it? The latter, I'm guessing.

I've had this same problem with @Moliere in the discussion on meta-ethics. Why interpret statements in a way that leads to falsehood? What's the point? That then clashes with how we think and speak. It results in an incongruity. Why create problems for yourself? Aren't we supposed to be solving them?

B.) To say an event will occur implies the negation is impossible. — Mww

That's not what I mean here. You know, there's a really easy solution to this: don't interpret it like that. Do you see that it's what you're doing that's the problem?

Most people (...) would then respond with (...) it's a bit ridiculous — ZhouBoTong

Sure they would. But considering the medium we’re using for our conversation, here and now.........
—————

I am not saying you don't have a point, but I am very confused as to how it matters? — ZhouBoTong

If I have a point, THAT is the matter. Whatever is said here matters to nothing but whatever else is said here. But I understand you to mean how does it matter in general, and of course, it doesn’t. Not to say there are not those who would claim if everybody thought his way there wouldn’t be any wars, deforestation or blue jeans with the knees ripped out. A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. Jimmy Page would always be ranked #1.
——————

Well then how come 2 kilograms + 2 grams does not equal 4 kilograms or 4 grams? — ZhouBoTong

Nothing wrong with saying that. However, all empirical knowledge absolutely depends on experience for it’s proof, so as soon as you put your mathematical claim to the test, by doing what the math calls for, experience will tell you the claim is false. Then it’s up to you to figure out why.
—————-

So they would have argued that this
We have knowledge our sun is a star, stars are known to supernova
— Mww
is subjective and can't be known for certain.[/

Knowledge is always tentative, so that takes care of the “can’t be known for certain” part, but blanket all-encompassing subjective idealism is pretty much defunct, so to say empirical knowledge is entirely subjective is pretty much passé. Dunno what that has to do with definitions, or how definitions are objective facts, but....if you say so.
—————-
— ZhouBoTong

I think I see our problem. I think every time you use the word "true", you mean something like "it can only be that way 100% of the time in any situation that anyone can conceive of" which I will think rarely occurs (I would say definitions and math is about it - language itself creates ambiguities, — ZhouBoTong

On the word “true”...correct. Gotta be a bottom line someplace, right?
On definitions...not. Math and logic alone, because only those are susceptible to proofs. You said it yourself....language creates ambiguities, and nobody wants their truths ambiguous.
——————

we just mean "true enough for all practical purposes."]what are the possible harms that could be caused by us summarizing the "truth" in this way? — ZhouBoTong

Generally, there aren’t any. Everydayman thinks from a practical point of view. Philosophers and critical thinkers in general don’t. Even wannabe armchair philosophers like us......

I’m too old-fashioned for that, I guess; to me dimensions are what make standards of measurement possible. — Mww

Call "dimensions" "what make standards of measurement possible" if you like, but it's still ideal, just like the idea of "unity", or "unit" is what makes counting possible. Making time a dimension is what makes time ideal, this follows Kant. Space is ideal, time is not. I believe that such category mistakes are very destructive to metaphysics. But there is a monist approach which denies that such categories are based in anything real in the first place. To me, this produces incoherent, unintelligible metaphysics

You still do not seem to be grasping the reality of the temporal aspect of the world. The world is changing from one moment to the next. If the world is "a certain way", then it can only be that way for a moment in time, and at the next moment it will be another way. Due to the nature of passing time, and possibility, how the world will be at the next moment is always uncertain. — Metaphysician Undercover

If it seems to you like I'm not grasping that, then you're completely misunderstanding. (Big surprise). You're preaching to the choir there.

So if the world was a certain way in the last moment, and how it will be in the next moment is uncertain, then at the present it is something between being in a certain way, and being in an uncertain way, or both, or some such thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

If this were coming from anyone else, I would think that they were playing a joke on me. You do realise that I was using "certain" there only to mean "particular"? The world is always a particular way at any given time. No amount of sophism is going to change that. It wouldn't even make sense to say that at a given time, the world is not a particular way, but only half-way between being a particular way.

However, this is unacceptable according to the law of excluded middle. So to avoid this problem we ought not even talk about "the world" as if "it is of certain ways". Such talk only creates a situation in which the fundamental laws of logic are violated. — Metaphysician Undercover

This isn't the case. It only indicates that you're bad at logic. You'd just be wasting your time making irrelevant arguments again, which seems to be your thing. I really, really don't want to go through that torture with you again. Can't you demonstrate that your misunderstanding of my argument leads to contradiction elsewhere?

You may well call time a dimension but Kant does not follow; he calls it a pure intuition, one of two, the other space.

Dimension is not what makes time ideal. Thinking away every possible property belonging to an object, such that all that is left of it is the time of it......that’s what makes time ideal. Same for space. The two things that cannot be thought away. The reverse works just as well: before any object can be thought there must be a place for it to be thought in and a time of its being thought.

Agreed on monism, unequivocally.

You may well call time a dimension but Kant does not follow; he calls it a pure intuition, one of two, the other space. — Mww

Right, as an intuition, time for Kant is ideal, just like space. So uniting time with space, as a dimension, naturally follows from this act of classifying the two together. Notice that I classed space as ideal, and time as non-ideal.

Thinking away every possible property belonging to an object, such that all that is left of it is the time of it......that’s what makes time ideal. — Mww

Properties are ideal, they are how we describe our perceptions. If you think away all the properties of objects, until you are left with only one thing, time, then that is the thing which is non-ideal.

Same for space. The two things that cannot be thought away. — Mww

Space can be thought away though. That's what gives us imaginary things, and concepts in general, these are objects which have no spatial existence.

Reasonable to believe...certainly;
Set the bar higher.....ditto.
Problems for myself.....not from where I sit.
Reasonable to say we believe something about the rock is very far from reasonable to say we know something about the very same rock under the very same conditions. How do we tell which leads to fewer additional questions?

If knowledge doesn’t require certainty or at least very strict criteria, how do we trust our theoretical science? How do we know it’s dangerous to step into a lion’s cage at the zoo? Sometimes reasonable to believe is all we have and other times reasonable to believe might just get you killed.

When I think about dinner tomorrow I am thinking NOW about dinner tomorrow. The other context is thinking TOMORROW about dinner tomorrow, which is meaningless. That’s what you wanted us to do....think rocks TOMORROW (because we were deleted an hour earlier is the same as thinking about something an hour later) about rocks tomorrow (an hour later).

If I do interpret statements in a way that lead to a falsehood, the falsehood belongs to me or the statement. If the latter, the onus is on my co-conversant to rectify it, if the former the burden is to inform me of my misinterpretation and the onus is on me to rectify it. Six of one etc, etc, etc......

What I’m doing is a problem for the experiment, granted. That I’m over-analysizing, probably. But you did ask for opinions, after all. And yes, I know what opinions are like......

Anyway. Ever onward.

A’) It can still be said is the epitome of speculation. While it is true such speculation can be unknowingly true, because it is speculation, at the time of speculation, that which is being said has equal opportunity of being unknowingly false. If the speculation rests right there, at merely being said, it is impossible to determine which it is.
B’) It is NOT a separate issue. Unknowingly true makes explicit the truth is NOT known as such. It’s right there in the language. The only possible way to prevent an unknown from being false is to KNOW it is impossible for it to be false and the only way for it to be impossible to be false is for it to be.......well....known to be true.
————————- — Mww

That's okay, it's not a problem for me anyway. We're talking about a truth that is unconfirmed by your standards, not necessarily an unknown truth. And I'm not merely speculating, I gave a reasonable argument in support of my claim.

This was just a digression.

That’s perfectly agreeable, but it is not what you said. — Mww

It relates to what I said and it's important to interpret what I said with that in mind. Given that it's the best explanation, that's a good reason for believing the related claim over alternatives. This is how lots of people reason. It's how lots of people arrive at beliefs. And before you think about being annoying by bringing up a fallacy about what's popular, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just pointing out that it's common, and suggesting that there's a reason for that.

If you doubt these kind of arguments, you'd need a good reason to do so. What's the good reason to doubt them? They work well. They don't need to be perfect. Do you think that they need to be perfect or something? That wouldn't seem reasonable.

To be is to be and that’s that, is what you said about rocks post-human. — Mww

I did say that, yes. But that's not all I said, is it? It's true, and I said it to emphasise the difference between my realist position and Berkeleyan idealism where to be is to be perceived.

Rocks before means rocks after, without regard to any other conditions. Period. That’s that. I didn’t recognize the reasonableness of the argument because the reasoning is irrational, insofar as no room is allowed for explanatory or logical alternatives. — Mww

My reasoning is not irrational, and that's not an accurate representation of my argument. I assumed the alternative and showed that it lead to absurdity. And you haven't refuted my argument. To do that, you'd need to show that at least one of the alternatives is superior in terms of what I've argued about realism, for example that it is of greater explanatory power, makes more sense, is more reasonable...

You haven't done that.

You admit to being a rational agent but deny your idealism. — Mww

You're funny. It's not "my" idealism. I reject idealism because it leads to absurdity. You know this already, or at least you should do.

There is no philosophy that allows that, except.......an extreme empiricist. — Mww

Incorrect.

So you could speculate about it and might even be unknowingly correct. We’ll just never know about it. — Mww

All this indicates is that you've set your standards too high. That's it. You might think that you're saying something more significant than that, but you're actually not.

If you think that I would need to actually be in the scenario, then that's where these problems of yours stem from.
— S

You ARE in it, however indirectly. — Mww

Oh my days. No. No I'm not. I'm simply not in it. It's a scenario where no one exists, so it's impossible that I'm in it. That's a clear contradiction. Thinking about a scenario is not being in a scenario. Not by any reasonable understanding of what that means. You're free to be unreasonable here of course, but don't expect me to be.

You might think that I'm missing the point here, but I'm not. I'm rejecting what you're asserting because it's unreasonable.

You can't say that there's someone in the thought experiment without violating the thought experiment. That would be like squeezing a lemon over a piece litmus paper in an experiment to find out whether litmus paper is acidic. You would have just ruined the experiment, and your findings would be worthless.

You can set a different thought experiment with someone in it, but then you'd be talking about a different experiment and not my own. I wouldn't really care about your thought experiment. I'd rightly assess it to be irrelevant.

Einstein’s thought experiment, just like yours, presupposes a third party observer, separate from the participants in the experiment. Because the experiment had to come from somewhere, the experiment requires an observer outside a world, seeing that world with no observers of its own. You, as the presupposed third party, then demand the missing observers make a determination about the perspective no longer inhabit, which is necessarily different than yours as the outside observer. Such requirement is irrational. — Mww

So, Einstein's experiment presupposes a perspective, does it? It presupposes an observer? That's nice. Therefore mine does too? Um, no. If his experiment does this, then good for him, but my thought experiment doesn't.

Saying anything that boils down to saying something like "A thought experiment requires someone to think it up" or "You can't think about something without thinking about something" is bloody obvious and beside the point.

This is one of idealism's most annoying errors. It's particularly annoying when the idealist just doesn't understand the error and persists in making it, erroneously believing that I'm the one making a mistake by implying a contradiction.

But there are rational agents. And we can speculate.
— S

Not in the experiment there aren’t; — Mww

I've explained that this is both a) obvious, and b) beside the point I'm making here. Given a) & b), you should stop pointing this out.

If you were to take everything that we've speculated to date, then how would you know that it contains not a shred of truth? How could you know that?
— S

I know speculation contains not a shred of truth iff I know the speculation has been proven false. — Mww

Okay, so you accept that there could be unconfirmed truths. There's that at least. And I take it you accept that it's unjustifiable for you to say that there aren't any? If not, then please explain how you could possibly know that.

What we know about rocks historically can pertain to what we think of rocks in the future, but how we came to our knowledge historically cannot obtain in the future. In one word...experience. Even if we don’t experience rocks historically, we experience the remnants of their existence and deduce factual, that is to say, non-contradictory, information therefrom. If we’re not around, we have no experience, hence no knowledge can be given from experience we don’t have. Claiming we don’t know enough to claim facts about the future is not an untenable position. — Mww

I see. So extreme empiricism fails in this regard. Of course, that's why it should be rejected. It's kind of funny that you don't seem to see that. You think you're arguing against me, but you're not, you're really arguing against yourself by showing that the assumptions of extreme empiricism lead to failures. If you can't rightly say that there'd be a rock, then you've fucked up. And given your assertions about experience in relation to this stuff, that seems to be where you're fucking up. Empiricism? Yes. Extreme empiricism? No.

realism has the lead in the poll for both Part 1 & Part 2, although it is tied with idealism in Part 2.
— S

Might wanna re-think that. — Mww

Nope. (And if you're being pedantic with my wording, quit it).

It’s not a matter of being popular; — Mww

Predictable. I hate it when people are predictably annoying like that. You don't need to point shit out that I never suggested, and am not stupid enough to suggest.

If you think, you’re a idealist of some kind, in some degree. — Mww

This just indicates that you're misusing the term by stretching the meaning beyond reason. Okie dokes then! You're free to do so, but I advise against it.

Idealism DOES explain how, and not at the expense of empiricism but in conjunction with it, and even if it is wrong, empiricism in and of itself as yet has no means to refute it.

Either get used to it, or convince yourself you think about the world as it actually is. — Mww

This is all bark and no bite. (And I warn you, if you act like a puppy, I might have an uncontrollable urge to give you a good kicking :lol: ). I dismiss it as unwarranted.

But this fundamental difference, and the reality of change, denies the possibility of making the deductive conclusion that what has been in the past, will be in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not saying, arguing, or suggesting in any way whatsoever that the future will necessarily resemble the past. If you think that, then... drum roll... you've misunderstood again!

First, I was leaving the argument with that as the major premise to you because you brought it up, and second, I don’t think S is ready to accept the absolute ideality of time with respect to human experience. — Mww

Sorry, but I'm not going to open wide for a spoonful of bollocks. That's not how I operate.

I'm going to ignore you now.

I think I see our problem. I think every time you use the word "true", you mean something like "it can only be that way 100% of the time in any situation that anyone can conceive of" which I will think rarely occurs (I would say definitions and math is about it - language itself creates ambiguities, and even witnessed events go through an interpreting agent). However, when S or I (or most people out there that do not know the philosophical word idealist) use the word, we just mean "true enough for all practical purposes." — ZhouBoTong

I identified that problem long ago. To put it bluntly, whether it's truth or knowledge we're talking about, his criteria is fucked up, and he repeatedly assumes his fucked up criteria in his criticism. But we reject his fucked up criteria for a better, more practical, more sensible, more reflective of ordinary language, criteria.

But S claims that the measurement of time, "an hour" in the op, could occur without a human being to measure it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh look, another misrepresentation. I claim no such thing. I claim that an hour would pass, not your nonsense-claim that a measurement of time would pass. For an hour not to pass, time would have to stop before an hour had passed, and I don't recall you making that argument. Instead, you make the argument of a sophist where you play around with semantics like a child with Play-Doh.

You could spend all day arguing against your own nonsense-claim, but it still would have absolutely zero impact on my claim. I reject your nonsense-claim, like you do. And I reject your additional nonsense-claim that your nonsense-claim is my claim. Your straw man is not my argument. Will you understand that? This discussion is strong evidence that you will not understand that, and that you'll press on regardless. Or you'll maybe have a temporary moment of recognition, but tumble head first right into another fallacy! You just can't seem to help yourself. I've never known anyone quite like you. You're pretty remarkable, and make for a fascinating case study.

Speaking of Play-Doh, have you noticed how little children tend to play around with it and mould crappy representations of stuff, then squish it when they're done? Apparently they find it satisfying, but if the adults are trying to have a serious conversion, and the little child keeps bothering them with their crappy little Play-Doh antics, then sometimes the appropriate action is to scold the child or to ignore it. And if that doesn't work, get the chainsaw.

If knowledge doesn’t require certainty or at least very strict criteria, how do we trust our theoretical science? How do we know it’s dangerous to step into a lion’s cage at the zoo? Sometimes reasonable to believe is all we have and other times reasonable to believe might just get you killed. — Mww

Some people have actually inadvertently contributed to their own death by believing what's reasonable at the time. But there's a very important sense in which they didn't do anything wrong. You could say, "They shouldn't have done that", but, although true, it would nevertheless be an astoundingly ignorant thing to say, given that they were being reasonable in doing what they were doing. They just didn't know any better at the time.

When I think about dinner tomorrow I am thinking NOW about dinner tomorrow. The other context is thinking TOMORROW about dinner tomorrow, which is meaningless. That’s what you wanted us to do....think rocks TOMORROW (because we were deleted an hour earlier is the same as thinking about something an hour later) about rocks tomorrow (an hour later). — Mww

I wanted you to presently think about a hypothetical scenario where we had all died an hour previously. I didn't want you to think at a time where that'd be impossible for you to do, like in the past or the future. You can only act in the present. I wanted you to presently think about what would've happened to rocks if we had all died an hour previously. I know that you're capable of doing this. I am capable of doing this, anyway. It's reasonable to believe that nothing extraordinary would happen. I also call that knowledge because I don't adhere to unreasonable criteria for knowledge like you do. Interpreted rightly, I'm not implying that it's impossible for something extraordinary to happen or anything of that sort. And as a result, I don't have the giant problem that you run into. How does it feel to have this giant problem where we don't know such an incomprehensibly huge amount, despite the really powerful sense of incongruity? Does it feel burdensome?

If I do interpret statements in a way that lead to a falsehood, the falsehood belongs to me or the statement. If the latter, the onus is on my co-conversant to rectify it, if the former the burden is to inform me of my misinterpretation and the onus is on me to rectify it. Six of one etc, etc, etc......

What I’m doing is a problem for the experiment, granted. That I’m over-analysizing, probably. But you did ask for opinions, after all. And yes, I know what opinions are like......

Anyway. Ever onward. — Mww

Well, just look at the results and think more practically about the situation. With your criteria, can you rightly say that we know what would happen to rocks if we all died? With my criteria, can I? Whose criteria is better? Give that some thought.

Interesting read, but I gotta tell ya, man......

“....All I hear is
Radio ga-ga
Radio goo-goo
Radio ga-ga....”

....not quite, but you get my drift, right?

Anyway. Leading on, re: pg 8. You reject idealism in any way shape or form, so do you reject subjectivity as well? If not, what is it?

If I have a point, THAT is the matter. Whatever is said here matters to nothing but whatever else is said here. But I understand you to mean how does it matter in general, and of course, it doesn’t. Not to say there are not those who would claim if everybody thought his way there wouldn’t be any wars, deforestation or blue jeans with the knees ripped out. A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. Jimmy Page would always be ranked #1. — Mww

That last point (bolded bit) would suggest that what you are saying DOES matter. If you know any good arguments in that direction I would be happy to look into them; but at first glance I can think of no way that idealism would necessarily lead to any of those things? - of course realism would not necessarily lead to those things either.

On definitions...not. Math and logic alone, because only those are susceptible to proofs. You said it yourself....language creates ambiguities, and nobody wants their truths ambiguous. — Mww

As a human adult, I don't know that I can even think, without language dominating the experience. Once objects have known labels, can we do anything but recognize them as such? Math can remove most of the ambiguous language, but not all, so therefor...?

I think some serious thinking needs to be done here. If definitions are not objective, how can proofs possibly be objective? Even math proofs will often include language (even with only symbols we will interpret as language, = means equals for example, so what if we disagree on the definition of equals?). If those definitions are subjective, then so are the proofs. I would also suggest that "experience" is about as subjective as it gets (can I ever have an identical experience to you?), so I am not sure how this follows:

all empirical knowledge absolutely depends on experience for it’s proof — Mww

, unless we begin to summarize meaning like I have been suggesting.

Everydayman thinks from a practical point of view. Philosophers and critical thinkers in general don’t. — Mww

Really? So economics, politics, space travel, human longevity, curing cancer, etc do not require critical thinking? I am not sure if this is intended as an argument or a not so subtle insult, but it just comes across as haughty. I must have mis-read.

You mis-read.

Oh look, another misrepresentation. I claim no such thing. I claim that an hour would pass, not your nonsense-claim that a measurement of time would pass. For an hour not to pass, time would have to stop before an hour had passed, and I don't recall you making that argument. Instead, you make the argument of a sophist where you play around with semantics like a child with Play-Doh. — S

We've been through this already. Time passes continuously. An hour is a measurement of time. You said it yourself, an hour is a unit of measurement. For there to be a point in time an hour after all human beings died, requires that someone measure and designate that point in time. Otherwise there is just continuous time without any human beings to determine specific points in time. So "an hour after all humans died" is nonsensical. Your op assumes such a point in time, and asks whether there would be a rock at this point in time. But despite your insistence, there are no such points in time. These points in time are human determinations.

For an hour not to pass, time would have to stop before an hour had passed, and I don't recall you making that argument. — S

This is very clearly false. For an hour to pass requires that someone measures an hour. Without anyone measuring, time could pass forever without any hours passing. You have reified "an hour", which you have already insisted is a unit of measurement. But time rather than "hours" is the real thing. So without humans, time passes, not hours. Regardless of your false representation of time as hours passing, there are no such hours passing, just time passing and human measurement of hours.

I identified that problem long ago. To put it bluntly, whether it's truth or knowledge we're talking about, his criteria is fucked up, and he repeatedly assumes his fucked up criteria in his criticism. But we reject his fucked up criteria for a better, more practical, more sensible, more reflective of ordinary language, criteria. — S

True. I do remember you saying that several pages ago, and I suppose your discussion of overly-high standards is continuing that. My stupid brain always thinks people just need to hear something in a different way and my view will suddenly make sense - whether it is my ego's fault or their biased thinking, I should have learned by now that it is unlikely to work.

for example that it is of greater explanatory power, makes more sense, is more reasonable... — S

This is the part of this discussion that has baffled me the most. They do not seem to even care if there ideas have explanatory power. It seems if they are right, and I KNEW IT, it would still change nothing about how I live...so, so what?