resistance of a circuit > drop in current flow CAUSED by resistance of a circuit is not timeless — ucarr

Indeed. U=IR. I is time dependent. PV=nkT. Dynamical balance.

Argument from ignorance. — Garrett Travers

So is the argument for no afterlife.

Just as there are Platonists and Kantians, that doesn't mean it's any less foolish. — Garrett Travers

I didn't say that. They exist. So solipsism and idealism do exist. Materialism looks foolish from their perspective.

No, they do not. Only men and women with moral codes that lead them in the right direction, or the wrong one. — Garrett Travers

They don't have right and wrong directions. That's you projecting.

This sentence says "No. Yes." — Garrett Travers

Yes. No!

Nietzsche says that the "real philosophers are commanders and law-givers." (Beyond Good and Evil, "We Scholars")
— Fooloso4

Yes, he did. And in his time, he had good reason for saying so. However, in the spirit of Nietszche, I would the real philosopher is he who realizes the that only alternative to a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, is the rule of commanders and law-givers. And I'd say in my own time I have good reason for saying so. But, that's just saying as much in the same spirit. The acual philosopher is the one has developed enough virtue within the domain to discuss, generate, and teach within the domain with proficient command. And I think I'm closer to the mark than Nietszche. — Garrett Travers

The real philosopher is a he? You haven't heard my mum and wife talking! True philosophical riddles!

What's a value to value trade?

But responses to my posts on this site certainly suggest that — god must be atheist

IHa! ndeed. But that's because the posts of god claiming he must be an atheist are are testifying to that in the first place.

Why is everyone a naysayer and yet winding up in self-contradictions on this site who oppose my opinions? — god must be atheist

I'm a yehsayher! I don't agree that scientists don't know what they measuring. If any intelligence they know a measure of its their own kind.

No evidence to suggest there will be an afterlife, and why would anybody desire one? — Garrett Travers

No evidence points at the contrary. So why rule it out?

Idealism is supposed to be impossible, it provides a consitent aim to reach for asymptotically. Solipsism is nonsense, you can tell because I'm typing to you. No shit. — Garrett Travers

And still there are idealists and solipsists.

No, the human mind is a natural concept generating entity — Garrett Travers

No. Men or women without morals exist.

Yes. — Garrett Travers

No. It depends to what the rules are applied.

a value for value trade of the products of one's mind, — Garrett Travers

What do you mean with this? Can you give an example?

the real philosopher is he who realizes — Garrett Travers

The "he" as philosopher is indeed in spirit with Nietzsche (not Nietszche...).

For example i

s an afterlife ruled out?
Is creation ruled out?
Are idealism or solipsism impossible?
Is an amoral reality possible?
Are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits. — Andrew4Handel

Afterlife can't be ruled out. Maybe it's better to ask: can a single isolated life be ruled ou?

Creation can't be ruled out and is even the only option left when the gaps are closed.

There are idealists and solipsists, so the logical conclusion is that they are not impossible.

There are men without moral. Thus, amoral reality is possible.

If there are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits depends on the subjects you apply them to.

For example

is an afterlife ruled out?
Is creation ruled out?
Are idealism or solipsism impossible?
Is an amoral reality possible?
Are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits? — Andrew4Handel

An afterlife can't be ruled out and the question is better posed as,: is life here as the only life ruled out?

How can creation be ruled out?

Some people are idealists or solipsists. A rather weird and selfish, and lonely belief but still.

Men without morals exist.

If there are logical, theoretical, or empirical limits, depends on the subject they are applied to.

So if we want to be free it's precisely sovereignty we must give up? — Frankly

No. You misunderstand. You don't have to give up sovereignty. You can be free and sovereign at the same time. But only if you isolate yourself from each and everyone. Freedom and sovereignty can't be achieved in company of other people though. To let the others have freedom and sovereignty you have to give up your own to some extent. Which means no one has true freedom and sovereignty, unless forced with power. To find the right balance, so everyone has at least a feeling of having enough freedom and sovereignty, be it individual or groupswise, is the true challenge.

If the rest of me was removed and science could still maintain just my brain and interface with it then "I" may well still 'exist' in a very real way. — universeness

I don't think this will ever be possible. Only your body fits your brain. You can't take your brain out and place it in a vat, supplying it with information that your body would provide for you normally. The brain and body are unseparable. Even you dreaming can't be accomplished in this way. Separating your brain from the body is just as impossible as separating the world around you from it. The brain, body, and physical world are inseparable.

Scientists don't know what they measure with IQ tests, — god must be atheist

They do. They measure the number of right answers on abstract questions. It's therefore an abstract measure of intelligence, as intelligence can't be quantified. Already the IQ itself is part of the strange kind of intelligence it's supposed to be a measure of.

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

But the weight has to sit down first.