That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties. — creativesoul
Not all powers of reason lead to that... — creativesoul
The language around energy and ‘doing work’ disguises the reality that energy is not exactly caused, but rather manifests from its own potential in relation to the potential of interacting events. — Possibility
A belief that may be false can be known to be false.
— Bartricks
Not all belief can be falsified. So, not all belief that may be false can be known to be. — creativesoul
And a clarification [can] serveClarifying what Buddhists believe, for instance, does not serve to justify those beliefs. — Bartricks
That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties.
— creativesoul — Bartricks
I think we have the same idea but are expressing it differently. I claimed that the principle of cause and effect and the principle of energy (vibration) are all-inclusive to all components of reality. That meant that they were fundamental to reality. In short, reality is energy. And, reality is cause and effect.
Energy is cause and effect - That which causes is energy. That which is effected is energy. The only difference is perspective. Fundamentally, all absolutes are identical. Cause and effect is primarily a perspective with regard to activity. Energy is primarily a perspective with regard to force. Both force and activity are integral to reality. — BrianW
Also, NOTHING IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME. If anything exists then it must have form (a configuration), force (influence) and activity. Where there's form, space is inevitable; where there's activity, time (relativity) is inevitable. And because form and activity are fundamental to reality, space and time are inescapable. — BrianW
Energy, for instance, has activity without form. Potential energy has influence with neither activity nor form. Likewise, cause and effect have activity without form, but will has influence with neither activity nor form. — Possibility
I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe. — Possibility
And both potential energy and will exist and have influence outside time, enabling us to predict, imagine and initiate activity. — Possibility
I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe. — Possibility
Energy, cause and effect, will, etc are not identities (or existences). Rather, they are aspects (or perspectives) of existences/identities. All forces/influences are contained within (or interact through) forms, just as all forms are configurations/structures of forces, and both forms and forces are in constant expression and interrelation hence perpetual activity. — BrianW
*will is just the human analogy to cause. — BrianW
What does 'outside time' mean?
I would think that anything within the human realm of perception and participation is within the bounds of time. So, how have you arrived at outside time? — BrianW
And a clarification [can] serve the same purpose as a justification.
You can clarify what you believe in and what you disbelieve. You can use clarification as a justification for your beliefs.
I have no idea why I am getting a line through my text. — ovdtogt
That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out. — ovdtogt
That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out.
— ovdtogt
How does that change anything you do, though? — Possibility
Your arguments all sound so circular. rational, reasonable, true, simple, theory, proposition. A lot of words just strung together in incoherent ramblings. No real insight, no vision, no clarity. Most of the time I have no idea what you are talking about. — ovdtogt
Now, if a belief can be useful yet not true, then we know - or those of us who have powers of reason can know - that truth and usefulness denote different properties
— Bartricks
That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties.
Not all powers of reason lead to that...
Just saying, it seems you're overstating the case you have. — creativesoul
No, it is just true. You can 'hold' whatever you want, that isn't going to make usefulness and truth denote the same property. — Bartricks
The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions. — Possibility
By outside, I mean regardless of one’s position within it. This is how we’ve determined our relative position on a spherical Earth, in the Solar System, the galaxy and the spatial structure of the universe. It’s how we’ve determined our relative position in human civilisation, the evolution of life and the unfolding of the temporal structure of the universe. It’s how we determine our position within our social groups and a global humanity, and why we struggle to acquire an accurate view of our position within both the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe. — Possibility
The biggest problem with the Newtonian perspective is that it removes all reference to the ‘self’ as a position within that reality. The problem this creates is similar to the problem solved by acquiring a heliocentric structure to the solar system: by positioning our perspective at a point within rather than central to the structure, we get a more accurately objective view. That’s all I’m attempting to do, really. — Possibility
What evidence do we have to point to that? — ep3265
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.