The justification seems obvious , in that, there is a lot more room in space than there is here on earth.Space was never a solution to excess population.
— noAxioms
Of course it is.
— universeness
But you don’t justify this assertion. — noAxioms
f you have population in excess of the capacity of the resources, then for every person you put in space, 1000 or more must go without resources. — noAxioms
Less savage solutions are possible. You are just being a bit impatient and lazy minded. :grin:It would be far more efficient to just kill the 1000 and free up those resources for those remaining. This is a better solution to excess population than space. It is also a nice example of trolley-problem. — noAxioms
Abiogenisis may have happened in water and at some point moved on to land and into the air. Life now exists on land sea and air. Off planet is the next obvious step. Do you think it would have been better if evolution left all lifeforms as fish or water creatures?No, the planet is the river or sea, the natural habitat of the fish. The bowls in the trees are these sealed enclosures on other planets (the trees), a place for which the fish are not evolved. — noAxioms
I disagree. Better to have a bird that can fly, live in trees, walk on the ground, wear a tech exoskeleton that lets it travel under water and live in a dome shaped, forrest city. Then it might think about living extraterrestially, when it wants to expand it's CV about what it is to be a bird.A windy day will empty the bowl of water in the tree, but the bird can take it. Better to put a bird there. — noAxioms
As you suggested in an earlier post. The first missions are scouting and pathfinder missions. Missions like Artemis 1 are a different beginning.Go there yes, but Hillary didn’t live on Mt Everest nor did Armstrong take up residence on the moon. — noAxioms
There is no perfect system, just improvements on current ones. If you make enough robust improvements you eventually create a good system. No true democratic socialist system has EVER been achieved by any country in the world so far. So, the struggle continues until one IS successfully created. Once that happens, I am sure the people who live under it will struggle to maintain it. It may even fall due to nefarious b*******, but the 'good' people will rebuild it. Hopefully it will be built so strong one day that it will be almost impossible to destroy it. Such aspiration is, to me, far better than the apathetic acceptance of the status quo that you seem to satisfy yourself with.But that’s the kind of democracy you seem to push. It’s precisely democracy that went wrong. The voters wanted him. He appealed not to rational arguments, but rather to their personal values (mostly validation of one’s otherwise suppressed biases against other groups). People don’t vote for the common good. They vote based on personal emotions. Democracy needs to fix that, and I don’t know how it can and still call itself democracy.
It’s not just the USA. Countries all over several continents have had similar candidates with similar platforms. Many (around half?) have won their elections. — noAxioms
Yeah? I will send you one of my skin cells and you can deliver my clone to me when you have finished creating it! :joke:No? You can grow a human from a single cell. It can metabolize and reproduce. — noAxioms
I was referring to sentient life, when I brought in 'the brain.'Nonsense. There’s plenty of living things without a brain. All multicellular life forms evolved from what were once single-celled individuals that needed to solve the problem of selfless cooperation in order to take it to the next level. — noAxioms
Yes it will, as the reason you gave for 'this cannot be done' is invalid, as majority rule means that the democratically selected action WILL happen, despite being unpopular with a minority. If that action allows Trump to take power, then the people will then have to deal with the consequences of that majority vote. Trump did not last long, but there was a lot of damage done, so, in the future, we must try to make sure that 'most of the people cannot be fooled some of the time.' It's the job of all secular humanist, democratic socialists, to fight for that goal. You should strive to help them whenever you can, instead of merely complaining when they fail to protect you, by successfully countering anomalies like Trump supporters. Perhaps you could help them talk to potential trump supporters and convince them not to vote for such morons. You are either part of the solutions or part of the problems.The sort of authority I’m speaking of needs to act on the benefit of the collective, but here you are suggesting this cannot be done because it would involve actions not popular with the individuals.
— noAxioms
No, democratic socialism supports majority rule.
In what way does this counter what I said (which I left up there)? I’m saying that majority rule isn’t going to result in the kinds of action/policy needed. — noAxioms
I’m not talking about benefit to minorities, and it seems that the typical voter isn’t very informed these days, and is not supportive of said secular humanism, as evidenced by people like Trump getting the majority vote on a platform against it, and against informed facts. I’m talking about benefit to larger goals like the future of humanity (said collective above), which often don’t benefit the majority of the voting individuals. — noAxioms
Good point.Human senses are all analogue, so we experience the world through them. — universeness
What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?We have all already accepted that human experience does not necessarily fully describe universal REALITY (no woo woo invocations please.) — universeness
Good point. It reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes. In the "dichotomy paradox", an object cannot go from A to B, because it has to first reach the middle of their distance, and then the middle of the remaining distcance, etc. ad infinitum. This paradox is easily refuted of course because it is based on a false assumption, that space is discrete and thus dvisible. Similarly with the "Achilles paradox", which refers to time instead of space. But both space and time are continuous. As are all analogue forms, versus difgital forms, which are discrete, as you correctly mentioned.I can take a hammer and smash a rock and observe evidence that a rock is reducible to smaller and smaller discrete parts. So, we have the 'continuity' of the analogue form and the 'discrete' quanta of the digital form — universeness
Right. You can also get an analogue waveform by passing through all the peaks of a digital waveform in a continuous movement. And vice-versa of course, which is how digital audio is produced (as far as I know, based on my limited knowledge on the subject.)Field excitations are discrete, but they can combine and propagate as continuous wave forms. — universeness
Of course it is real. :smile: Any sound that we hear is real. Coming from a digital or analogue source. Digital sounds propagate into the air as analogue ones. And thus we can hear them because our hearing is analogue. This is another point that supports the view ... Well, you know what. :smile:When digital music is played back, it's REAL music your ear receives — universeness
Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.Analogue states are continuous but anything continuous, is a combinatorial of discrete states. A movie is a series of photographs. A rock is a combinatorial of discrete fundamentals, as is every object in the universe. — universeness
I would certainly give you my full support on that one. But not your ideas on how to deal with excess population.first of which would be the abolishing of over-the-table bribes. Money-talks is a horrible system that yes, just makes rich people richer. — noAxioms
How can a socialist system do that? The layabout seems to get the same personal needs met as the inovator. — noAxioms
How do you build a modern chip fab without those huge expenditures of resources, especially when money doesn’t even exist anymore to track return on expenditure of said resources? — noAxioms
Agree, but how to combat that? City (or country) X has a sports team with a lot of fans behind it. How are they to attract the better talent with promise of only modest means for their work? How are you going to prevent some other city from promising better means to this athlete, especially when this tiny extra expenditure would mean the difference between the city’s team winning or not?
BBC TV/movies seems to have celebrities without insane compensation. Sometimes at least… — noAxioms
What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?
If not, then you must refer to an absolute, objective reality, which is one of the most debatable subjects in philosophy, from what I know and have personally witnessed. (Which of course is out of the scope of this thread.) — Alkis Piskas
Anyway, we are all just sharing views in this place, aren't we? — Alkis Piskas
Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.
Better see it this way: when you take a video, there are no separate parts (photos). You can, if you want take a screenshot, in the same way you take a selfie, which will be an independent image, but this would be just like taking a handful of water from a continuous flow of water. The water flow does not consist of handfuls of water. The video does not consist of screenshots. — Alkis Piskas
I'm afraid, my friend, your learned patience is probably wasted on them like rain on a Japanese dry garden.The continuous is made up of the discrete. It's the discrete that seems to be fundamental and not the continuous. Any 'flow' or excitation like a vibration, is a physical combinatorial. I include all energy forms when I use the word 'physical here. — universeness
I agree that Downward Causation, as observed, seems to be coasting on Momentum. But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences.I am fine with 'downward causation' as described by wiki above. It has NO SIGNIFICANT RELATION to teleology or teleonomy. There is NO INTENT in the biological downwards causation described by wiki above and the 'mental events acting to cause physical events' or 'change,' is HUMAN INTENT and that is the only valid connection with notions of teleology or teleonomy — universeness
So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? :smile:I have no idea if humans or future transhumans will ever be able to observe the universe at it's biggest scale. — universeness
Thank you. I enjoy our exchange too!I am enjoying your contribution Alkis! — universeness
Right. The effect of the continuous movement is caused by the fast succession the frames, exactly as in flip book, with the fast turning of its pages. Only that this effect, i.e. what we are perceiving, is a representation of the environment, not the environment itself. If we take a video of a ball rolling, in its structure the video will consist of frames/images, but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous.A video has a frame rate, such as 24 fpi (24 frames per second). That means 24 pictures are taken or shown every second. — universeness
Well, again, Physics is not my strong suit, but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement?An ocean is made up of water molecules, which are made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc. The continuous is made up of the discrete. — universeness
So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? — Alkis Piskas
but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous. — Alkis Piskas
Relative movements depending on what frame of reference you are using. Excited atoms move more so 'heat' /temperature is a factor. A 'frozen' atom has a rest frame (not moving). But it is moving if it is on the Earth and the Earth is rotating.but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement? — Alkis Piskas
I can't help not mentioning here someone who has best described the concept of time without even mentioning the word: Heraclitus. "Everything flows", “No man ever steps in the same river twice". This also depicts the attribute of continuity of the physical universe. — Alkis Piskas
We fully disagree on the subject of continuity vs discretness of the physical universe, but this was a fruitful and interesting philosophical exchange. How far would it have been gone if we were fully agreeing from start? — Alkis Piskas
Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness
It seems much more valuable to me to see your wondement and your awe, as a fantastic emergence, that belongs to YOU, not gods or platonic notions of external perfect forms.
I think I assign more value to you Athena, and Gnomon and every human on this planet than any god posit ever has or ever will. — universeness
I enjoy the debate and I am grateful for those who take the time to contribute. I learn from all of you in many different ways. I improve my knowledge of where the stumbling blocks are, where the complexities lie. How to probe the robustness of an argument. I also improve 'details' and tighten up shortfalls in my approach to debate with others. It's all very useful stuff. I have exchanged with some TPF members in the past that I would consider an actual enemy of everything that I value but not on this thread ..... so far. — universeness
THESIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED :Gnomon is, ex mea (humble) sententia, constructing a more elaborate interpretation of The Matrix which is itself based off of The Simulation Hypothesis (Nick Bostrom et al). What I mean to say is if you find Gnomon's Enformationism to fall short of the philosophical mark, you need to have a strong argument against The Simulation Hypothesis. Didn't you like The Matrix movies? I did although I'm deleted in the end — Agent Smith
1. The "ontological question" at issue is modern (re: Leibniz), not "ancient".Enformationism is merely an attempt to answer an ancient Ontological question : "why is there something instead of nothing". Big Bang, Multiverse, & Inflation hypotheses simply dismiss that conundrum as an unscientific "who cares' riddle. Likewise, Universeness & 180proof seem to prefer to leave such transcendent questions unanswered, even on a philosophy forum full of "go for it" conjectures. — Gnomon
Btw, I enjoyed The Matrix (only the first movie) as shallow, comic bookish gnosticism, not really a riff on Bostrom's digital update of Plato's Cave. Like e.g. Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch, Seth Lioyd and Stephen Wolfram, I think the 'laws of nature' are computable even though the universe – like the brain – is not a "computer" (ergo, without some intentional agent aka "programmer") — 180 Proof
We don't "see eye-to-eye", amigo, because – as I've pointed out in over half of my near 300 exchances with him – "Enformationism" is conceptually incoherent and that "The Great Enformer" himself lacks intellectual integrity. Thus, he cannot address these questions (below) without further invalidating his "ideas". — 180 Proof
But the inference of Intention is based on the billiard ball analogy. Their momentum always begins with acausal Impetus. And where the impetus does not come from other balls on the table, we can logically infer that there was an off-the-table Cause : e.g. intentional pool shooter. — Gnomon
Why do you assign a gender to your proposed transcendent?Although the wielder of the pool cue is Transcendent (exogenous), his necessary existence is a "significant relation" for Ontological explanations, if not for Scientific purposes. Moreover, the causal Intent behind the Big Bang impetus, may be imagined as human-like, or god-like, or an infinite chain of accidental causes, according to your personal preferences. — Gnomon
But ↪180 Proof's harsh sarcasm toward any intimations of Transcendence makes it difficult to word a response that doesn't hit him where it hurts : his faith in Materialism/Physicalism. — Gnomon
I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being. I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. How do I say? A triangle is not a triangle unless it is a triangle. Helium goes up because it is lighter than air. H20 is water, not ciritic acid. This is mechanical than intellectual. — Athena
Chardin (never heard of him/her/gender variant) sounds like a panpsychist.Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man. — Athena
What do you mean? Animals are conscious, yes? Or are you going down the solipsistic path?What if there is no consciousness without human consciousness? — Athena
I broadly agree, if we compare our species with all other species we know about. That could be an interesting thread. A comparison between the historicity of humans with a projection of what we know about any other species and how they might have stewarded the planet, If they became the dominant species instead of us. Would it be a better world, if this was a planet of the apes or a planet of the meercats or ants etc?We are pretty awesome! Or perhaps I should say potentially we are awesome. — Athena
So, don't worry about any 'science' you don't know or understand. I think we should celebrate the fact that as Newton famously said:We agree. I suppose because I use the reason to define logos, you and everyone else, jump to the conclusion that I am talking about something that can be all-knowing. That is not what my intended meaning. — Athena
We have total agreement on that! I love what happens when we engage with each other. The philosophy forum has the best-thinking people don't you think? The political forums and be an extreme failure to be rational. Politics is another game. It is supposed to be less emotional and more rational but unfortunately, the political forums are not and neither is the news media focused on being rational as it once was when Walter Cronkite was reporting the news. — Athena
Since it has no anthro-morpic form, you can call it whatever makes sense to you : Logos, First Cause, Demon*4, etc. The thesis does not prescribe any kind of faith or worship, so it's not a religious concept. — Gnomon
Gnomon does indeed value the fundamental contributions of Plato & Aristotle to human understanding. seems to be a nice guy, but he misunderstands & misrepresents Gnomon's Enformationism thesis*1. Probably because, from his implicit Materialist/Physicalist*2 perspective, it looks like Spiritualism or Idealism. To him, those worldviews are primitive & childish & just plain wrong. Yet Mr. Nice Guy can be somewhat indulgent toward such immature notions, as one would toward a juvenile's innocent babbling. Unlike another poster, he's not intentionally malicious, but his Matter-is-all vocabulary makes abstract (meta-physical) Platonic & Aristotelian concepts sound like literal non-sense.Perhaps Gnomon would agree with that point of view, as he also seems to greatly value the musings of Plato and Aristotle etc. I don't. Do you not worry that if we assign all the wonder and awe that we are capable of mustering when we muse about the universe and our origins, life and fate, to the machinations of a supreme being, we reduce ourselves and leave ourselves with NOTHING. — universeness
I have no such concern because I do not understand the energy of the universe as a being.I do not attribute the laws of physics to a conscious being. Logos, the reason it is like it is as it is, is because that is the way it works. — Athena
Impressive, eh? — Alkis Piskas
Gnomon admits to having trouble comprehending 'ontological immanence' à la Spinoza or e.g. — 180 Proof
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.