The philosopher is opposite the gambler. — ucarr

The philosopher is a player who does not know that he is also playing.

Thanks for sharing.

[Please don't analyze. If you explain what you intend to express, you will still not explain it (because you will have to explain the explanation) and kill your style.]

:grin:

While foiling the standard approach to the unifying theories, being pessimistic and not seriously about it, you can actually arrive at a unifying model. — EugeneW

This sounds like you maybe agree that pessimism-fatalism is a useful frame of mind for conducting philosophy.

So he attacks that quest while he actually wants to see one at work? — EugeneW

Herein, my word choice of "attack" is unfortunate. In this context, "attack" means "line of attack," or "approach to the solving of a problem," not "attack" as in "find fault with," or "criticize."

[Please don't analyze. If you explain what you intend to express, you will still not explain it (because you will have to explain the explanation) and kill your style.] — gikehef947

I'm thinking about this seriously, with intent to incorporate it into my methodology, when I have a better understanding.

Thanks for sharing. It feels like good advice, albeit an approach whose use should be made sparingly, lest one fall prey to obscurantist language games.

Wait a minute! What if some audacious philosopher, knowing ultimate laws of everything must paradoxically fail, intentionally sets about attacking the quest for a theory of everything, being fatally curious about the nuggets that shower forth from this Hadron Super-Collider of a theory? — ucarr

Why must ultimate laws fail?

Herein, my word choice of "attack" is unfortunate. In this context, "attack" means "line of attack," or "approach to the solving of a problem," not "attack" as in "find fault with," or "criticize." — ucarr

So he tries to solve the problem of finding a unified theory how? When I criticize the standard model of unification, the unifying principle, in particle physics, and by that same criticizing, a new unifying principle comes along, should I criticize that also?

Why must ultimate laws fail? — EugeneW

This question digs into some of my currently evolving thinking about ontic boundaries of material objects in the context of an origin story, one of the impossibles that philosophy is tasked with solving.

An ultimate law of physics (or, for that matter, of any scientific discipline) holds the status of First Cause. Re: First Cause, I lean towards Kant with the notion that such a thing is transcendently real, meaning it can't be pinned down to anything like a satisfying specificity, which is what human mind hungers for in its quest for an origin story.

Why must First Causes be transcendently real? Even with a First Cause, the element of context remains. Well, the context of a First Cause, being the "holding space" for said First Cause, must stand apart from it, thus negating First Cause status of First Cause.

If we say First Cause is its own context, we posit our thinking within the inner sanctum of paradox which, existentially speaking, is a transcendent object, so First Cause, though extant somewhere, escapes our firm grasp again! Well, this is the terrain of quantum uncertainty, is it not?

With the transcendent paradoxicality of QM, we get a probablistical handle on First Cause, but it's just an admission that something passable as First Cause is out there, somewhere, although there's no discreetly specifiable there there.

P.S. - Big Bang Theory appears to have this ontic boundary problem as described above. What's the context of an infinitesimal point? We're halted from saying "itself" because there is no dimensional expansion. Is the pre-Big Bang universe a transcendently paradoxical entity? Wow! Let's try to wrap our heads around that one. Impossible!

But my most favorite part is the misspelling of Strange in the thread title. It's like printing a whole bunch of twenty dollar bills on your computer at home, leaving the W out of Twenty. — god must be atheist

On point, god must be atheist! I could try to say "stange" is some of my bad French; would anybody buy that? Naw! Di-stinguer has an extra syllable, and the spelling is totally different.

Your feedback is encouraging & much appreciated.

On the contrary, gamblers, like lovers, play to lose – to keep the games going. The action is everything, that's the jones! :broken: — 180 Proof

Ain't no fun in a truly broken heart.