This is a discussion on pragmatic epistemology. You guys have headed off on a different subject. Hows about you start a discussion of your own elsewhere — T Clark

Digression is annoying from the standpoint of the author of a thread. I appreciate that.
Digression is also so very common within human dialogue.
Thank you for your indulgence, I'm sure we will p*** o** to other threads soon enough,
or get back on topic or do both.

Nope. You did a great job, buddy — jgill

:grin:

Near the border of our volume, there is interaction with stuff outside of the volume — Cornwell1

Does it not come down to whether or not, what you say here is true or false?
How would we obtain evidence of such interaction?
Are the hubble volumes described in Tegmark's level 1 multiverse, 3D volumes is a 4D space?
I followed your link and read what I had the time to read but I think I would have to dive in a lot deeper to make any significant contribution to this thread.

This only value I garnish from this OP is the advice:

"Think carefully about how to think!"

When Bruce Lee was giving a lesson to a student. He got up close and pointed up towards the heavens. He then slapped the student on the back of the head and said:
"Don't concentrate on the finger! or you will miss all the heavenly glory!"

The centipede should have just strutted on past this pesky toad, John Travolta style.

BTW when are we going to reject idiotic titles such as Saint, King, Prince, Duke, Messiah etc.
Have we not grown past such undeserved and illogical labels yet?

So, what's wrong with:

'Infinite variety in infinite combination,' as a starting point?
Or even finite, but very very large variety, in finite but very very large combination,' as a starting point? to the 'workings/capability of the Universe.'
Random chance as the driver.
Sexual conception starts the 9 months (for humans at least) process of creating the body with the included triune brain system, using universally available raw materials.
At some point during that 9 months 'self-awareness,' switches on, Why? because it can!
(No abortion question sidetracks please!)
Purpose of all this?
The data is still being gathered but it seems to me, our main purpose is to provide significance to the existence of the Universe.
How?
By thinking and communicating with others.
Each human life (developing personality) lived is a variation in form from all available combinations.
Death is due to entropy and from the evidence we have so far, it maybe, ultimately preventable but perhaps not for eternity, due to accident etc.
Increased human lifespan may result in better science due to more time to learn, gain experience.
How much brain capacity is currently used? Not that much! So.........
The solutions to lack of resources, living space, population size, inter-personal relationships on an individual/group/national/global scale etc is within the capabilities of our scientific, political and social policy making and the fact that the Universal space available, is vast!!! 8 billion people is a small drip in the cosmic scale.
According to the cosmic calendar we have only arrived in the last few seconds. We have only been thinking and communicating in any form for maybe 100,000 years but for anything near to a civilisation of any relevant size and significance, bring duration down to only a few thousand years.
Give us a f****** chance (especially any depressing antinatalist or rapture-type spouters out there.)

Back to purpose:
To build civilisations/societies. Then we argue/war about what works and what's fair and what doesn't and isn't. We change accordingly or repeat a few times and eventually change.
Death before technology can save you is unfortunate! You don't come back! But your constituent parts including that which made up 'I' or 'You' are distributed Universally. Back under the control of the random driver, The you that was, no longer exists or ever will again, unless by random chance but you will not be aware of any past existence, even if that incredibly unlikely event occurs.

Our ultimate purpose? To answer all questions!
Why? I dont know, but maybe, if that state is ever achieved, then the Universe will become self-aware.
What happens then? I dont know!
Who am I talking to?
Well, me, myself and I.........and....You! (F*** solipsism!)

How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?

You see, you keep making the same mistake of asserting that I am wrong while at the same time talking about subjective truths and what is accurate is what is useful. If truths are subjective, then I can never be wrong, and what is useful to me may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than what you believe to be the case. I don't think that you are following through with thinking about the implications of what you are saying because you keep saying one thing (all truths are subjective) and then doing another (accusing me of being inaccurate). — Harry Hindu

Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong, firstly on your assertion that truth and accuracy are synonymous and your assertion that paradox is useless. You seem to assign some priority to what you decide is useless to you regardless of its usefulness to others. God is a useless concept to me but I respect its usefulness to others and its status as fundamental to some.
I have never once claimed that 'all truths are subjective,' I stated the posit as part of a paradox.
I don't agree with your claim that there is a logical position that exists, within which, it's impossible for an individual to be wrong. The best that can be achieved is paradox, neither true nor false. You say this is a useless state. I think it's an intriguing state. You say I am not making sense, I say I am. So we reach panto stage. so hey ho, who cares? I will still dance with you, if you want to keep the music playing.

Ha! "Science piction" movies. When subtitled. — Cornwell1

Yeah, but I just stole the word from the board game called 'Pictionary,' so I can't claim to be the originator.

What's the difference between = and :=? Say f(x)=x2f(x)=x2 and f(x):=x2f(x):=x2. And what's the difference with ≡, "identical to"? — Cornwell1

It depends, are you asking about what these mean in maths or computing or both?
The way they work is the same in both fields but their 'workings' are represented/emulated in Computing in a different way than they are in maths.
I don't know of a programming language that would have a code line, such as

f(x):=x^2

To me, with my computing hat on, this line is an incorrect use of the := operator.
With my maths hat on, it would also be incorrect to write this because use of := means that you are not writing an equation, you are writing an assignment expression. So it only makes sense if you are simply trying to say "I am assigning x^2 TO BE A FUNCTION OF X"

In computing, it would be more like:

REM subroutines
f(x);
LOCAL z;
LET z=x
LET z:=z*z
RETURN z

REM main program
INPUT x
y:= CALL f(x)
PRINT y
REM end program

In maths, as you know, the function f(x) = x^2 would graph as a parabolic curve.
A loop would be used within the above program to create the same thing on a computer screen.
So f(x) = x^2 to me in words says "a function/operation/process which can be equally represented by x^2 or the function of squaring a range of numbers, one after the other.
A function of x SUCH THAT we will square each value of x. Is to me, a balanced statement.
The := operator is only needed in computing because = is more commonly used as a true/false operator.

I have never come across the symbol ≡ in my maths or computing experience that I can recall.
but to me, identical means no difference at all. I don't see any difference between
x = x and x ≡ x

Perhaphs jgill, can offer better insight here, than I.

Ha Ha. Now, that's a brilliant piction(my word for picture with caption)! aint it the truth! best post I've seen since joining this forum.
Still laughing....... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought the same of universeness, who was a computer teacher. — Cornwell1

:grin: :heart:

Yeah, I used to entertain my students with stories about the early days of computing.
Opcodes and operands, assembly codes, big valves switching on and off for 1 and 0.
punch cards (I had some metal ones to show them) and punch tape etc. Pages of daisy wheel printer paper, connected pages of thin paper, perforated on both sides, full of nothing but 1's and 0's with an error in one 16bit stream, on the 31st page of a printout of 100 pages. A 1 that should have been a 0.
They began to understand how error checking was quite hard in those days.

A friend at uni did his thesis on manipulating fractals. He produced some amazing looking flora type images based on ordering chaotic fractals using algorithms. Good stuff.

Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense — Harry Hindu

Well, if we are talking past each other then we can try and correct that. I say you are ignoring the paradox state because you call it useless. It is useless because you and, me to, don't understand it? Does the Universe have a responsibility to explain its complexity to us? or is it one of our main purposes to 'decode' the Universe, despite the 'but it's impossible to fully understand and we never will' stance that some hold. I suggest we will progress more if you stop attempting to advise me on what I should do next due. I am quite willing to explain myself further until understanding is improved between us. Perhaps we can achieve that without too many 'cheap shots' from either side. I can get down in the shit with the best of them but I have never found the outcome of such exchanges particularly fruitful.

Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true". — Harry Hindu

I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor.

Finally, some examples: — Harry Hindu

Your exasperation button is easily pressed. I had already given you the example of 'the only true fact is there are no true facts.' Your quick jump to exasperation, is a weakness in the teaching world.

Your examples help prove my point, not yours. If you can't provide an example of a question that either of these paradoxes answers, or which state-of-affairs they refer to, then that helps to prove my point — Harry Hindu

No they don't, that's just in your head. The fact that you think the concept of paradox is not valid is mathematically, dead wrong. You can just dismiss paradox if your wish but If our exchange has now switched from truth versus accuracy to 'the validity of the paradox state.' then fine. You can read about paradox on wikipedia and debate, "a list of all lists that do not contain themselves, would contain themselves" and its clash with set theory and the many other logic challenges that the paradox state reveals, yourself. I am not too interested in trying to convince you of the mathematical validity of the paradox state.

they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true — Harry Hindu

They were not just 'told' in the 'matter of fact' and 'simplistic' way you suggest. Their compliance is born out of fear. Terror can make some people see three lights when there are only two. I am not suggesting that all theists are tortured into their belief, despite their ability to think logically or critically. But threatening people with the most henious punishments possible, for enternity, is quite close to mental torture if you ask me.

You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules — Harry Hindu

No I'm not confused (do you enjoy this kind of panto-style textual exchange? Oh yes you are! oh no I'm not!)
Allowing and airing minority views is a vital part of any democratic system as that is how minority views may become majority views.

The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed. — Harry Hindu

The report is about what was observed. Do you simply mistrust all reporters?

I didn't say that you claimed to be attempting to educate me, I'm saying that you just attempted to do so — Harry Hindu

I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox.

Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful — Harry Hindu

No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that.

Oh, they use evidence — Harry Hindu

Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to.

You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress — Harry Hindu

I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system.

For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others — Harry Hindu

One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals.

Then please educate me on what a paradox says — Harry Hindu

I wasn't ignoring that paradox's exist. I was explaining what a paradox is. You are free to disagree, but it would be helpful to know why — Harry Hindu

Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.
Using majority support as evidence is a logical fallacy (and you're educating me on logic? - go figure). It is commonly called, appealing to popularity or argumentum ad populum — Harry Hindu

I never claimed I was attempting to educate you about anything. I am not attacking so you don't need a defensive posture, we are merely exchanging views with I hope, the intention to stimulate debate. I have little interest in being adversarial. No winners or losers, just dialogue.

All I can say about the state 'paradox' is what you yourself know 'its not true or false.'
I know that does not satisfy. Trying to explain something by stating what it is not, often does not satisfy but I for one, currently, can't do any better.

I think we agree that evidence assists in declaring a posit right or wrong, I think most people do.
Some people, don't need evidence, some theists for example.

Majority support as a democratic method is practical whether or not it's a logical fallacy.
What's your alternative?
I'm sure you would agree that a purely logical approach to every circumstance is, a flawed strategy.
Our exchange was based on the difference between 'accuracy' and 'truth.'
I maintain the position that there is some difference.
You have not changed my mind on that by what you have typed so far.
I'm sure my typings have not altered your position either.
We can both accept that without so much as a flutter.

Now what? Where did it come from? — Cornwell1

I don't know.
Do you not get a little joy from the thought that we still have questions to answer and therefore still have purpose?

You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu

To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox.
'Every truth is subjective as an objective truth' is a state of paradox, which demonstrates that the state 'true' and the state 'false' are not the only two logical states in existence. It's got nothing to do with truths that we don't know are true.

My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully. — Harry Hindu

Merely your opinion

Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu

If I say the Earth is round and another says it's flat, then we will both have our supporters and dissenters. Who would you support? whichever choice you make, would mean that you are calling the other group wrong. Someone being declared wrong by majority vote is good enough for me. If new evidence comes to light then perhaps the vote will change.

All sounds good to me!

Click on my image to see an example. — jgill

I assumed by 'my image' you were referring to the icon which takes you to your profile page but when I went there, I could find no code example
Used many programming languages throughout my career as well. Mostly using Python at the moment.

Do you advocate for social justice through personal empowerment? Do you believe it's achieved through universal access to personal development in the form of housing, education & employment? Do you think that, where appropriate, businesses should be owned & operated by the public? Do you advocate for pluralism with respect to a person's metaphysical commitments, or lack thereof — ucarr

I advocate for social justice as a human right regardless of the 'power' an individual may or may not possess.
I believe providing the basic needs of every human on this planet, including access to free education and medical care from cradle to grave is also a human right and no human individual or group has the right to claim ownership of land. Employment is not such a big issue if everyone can take their basic needs for granted. But life can be boring if you are not engaged in useful activity so I think the vast majority of people who can 'work', would choose to do so, especially if there was a communal need for you to do so.
I believe in nurturing people not profits. Money is the driver of what you call 'business'
Money would not exist in the society I favour.
All of the essential services should be in public ownership and should never be commoditised in a 'stock market' I have no problem with small businesses, if individuals want them. I would disallow large businesses.
I would disallow billionaires and multi-millionaires.
I am a democrat so I certainly advocate political pluralism.
If by metaphysical you refer to a person's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose, including theism,
then yes. That is a vital tenet of true socialism. But you cannot incite violence and you cannot INSIST others believe as you choose to.
I use 'I' a lot in the above text, deliberately as socialism requires the consent of the majority, initially and regularly (through a voting system). To create the society I have outlined. If that consent is withheld or is withdrawn then the system will not and should not hold.

Many of us agree that deity is idealism. Well, anti-deity is also idealism — ucarr

I simply disagree. You can label god as perfect if you wish. Ideal is just a descriptive label, nothing more.
But ideal......idealistic.....idealist is a descriptive ladder towards a 'perfection' concept which is based on Plato and Aristotle's musings and probably many many others before them. Atheism has got nothing to do with 'a ladder towards perfection.' It is an opinion that there are no gods.

the standard that I assert that defines them is the skill and knowledge requisite to perform within that given domain independent of an instructor. We agree there? — Garrett Travers

We do agree there!

Thanks! I had a great time and collapsed into my bed in the wee small hours.
There were 9 of us, so the chat was varied, multifaceted and deep(at times).
Too much to report here. They all ridiculed the antinatalist view, however.
I think that was the only position where there was strong consensus.
I'm sure the antinatalists could find 10 supporters however (perhaps a global search would be required) to defeat my nine votes against.

Though I don't fully understand...Multiple personalities? — Cornwell1

Well, I typed

I always enjoy a bit of pantomime based exchange, 'Oh no you don't!,' 'Oh yes you do!,' — universeness

One voice in my head agreed with me and another voice did not. So three voices could be three different (or muliple) personalities. Just my sense of humour, nothing more.

I believe the gods are real existent though. How else can you explain the presence of the universe? — Cornwell1

I understand your frustration, I feel it too, we cant answer your question yet but that feeling of frustration is a driver that makes us continue to seek an answer. So far, if Cosmology is correct, we do understand the 'How,' back to the inflationary moment. We have no idea about the ultimate why? YET!
I just don't need the lazy God of the gaps filler, and all the fables written by humans, about how it or it and its pals have created and manipulated us to give some sort of meaning and significance to it/them.

and to everyone else on this thread/site.
Enjoyed today's exchanges. Cornwell1 gave me the good giggle I needed to start my day/night Saturday session.
I am away to meet friends in town and drink alcohol until I'm forced to stop.
Perhaps after the beers are flowing well, I will ask the company.
So guys 'What constitutes a Philosopher.' They may respond or they may throw their drinks at me. I will find out soon.
Cheers Fur Noo!

it's the poor syntax combined with unnecessary jargon. — Tom Storm

I agree, and I think cromwell1 does too. I do appreciate that it's hard to discuss complicated philosophical concepts without 'jargon' but attempting to exemplify using everyday experience style examples are appreciated, if not always possible.

We should be on guard and immanently attempt for less pretentiously loquacious talkatives; garruloussly avoiding gossipy and loose-lippened, indiscrete blabber, and aim for an objective silver tongue, so we can effectively and
efficiently adapt a communicative transparent mode of speech, instead of the chatty and loose-tongued vocalizations so blindly uttered by fellow subjects in present society, leading to incomensurable inconsistencies and incoherency. — Cornwell1

Yep, that's all I am saying, we just have to spoke in clear England, that much good for clear things.

Dunno. Potential contingencies, in the aftermath of an intergrowth of two non-abelian intrinsically curved gauge fields, expressed as fibre bundles on the cotangent normalized perpendicularity, as in ophicalcite, myrmekite, or micropegmatite, relating to or being a bone between the hyomandibular and the quadrate in the mandibular suspensorium, should be implemented in mutual conservation of synchrone synergy, as an holistic collapse of the emblematic synthesis implicitly augmenting an asgardian symplectic symbolism, pervading confabulations the contemporary crisis in modern colloquial language. — Cornwell1

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So by N=1/N you mean the new N becomes the inverse of the old, for example 3 becomes 1/3? — Cornwell1

Yes but you covered this in the OP with the composite symbol :=
Early programming languages did not distinguish between = and := or
Equals(=) and becomes equal to(:=)

In words the code line:
110 LET N=1/N
would be 'Let the numeric variable/container called N become equal to (or contain the answer to), 1 divided by the content of variable N after the line 100 INPUT N has been executed.

BUT this is not the correct mathematical use of =
= is not an ASSIGNMENT operator is is a BALANCE operator
So the equation N=1/N in words is

Find 'anything you like' to put into the algebraic variable N so that both sides of this 'equation' are balanced.

So more modern programming languages use := to act as the assignment operator and the use = as a true/false operator, such as

Condition: IF N=1/N THEN
Action if true: PRINT N
Action if false: PRINT 'inputted value does not balance the equation.'

What would have happened if I refused to sign? — Cornwell1

You could have started a campaign. You may have been surprised by how many in the University would have supported you. One snowflake can start an avalanche. You would perhaps have gained a lot of outside support as well. I support such campaigns if I hear of them. Just like the schools in the deep South of the USA who were forced to accept black students. This pathetic excuse for the word 'University' (the name suggests 'for all, not for theists only!) would have or indeed will have to accept atheists as well or else it should be shut down and replaced.
I would have loved to see the day when you entered that university without having to sign something you perhaps didn't agree with, on principle at the time and those who insisted you did sign, got removed from their jobs.

From what you say, you sound more deist to me than theist but I could be dead wrong.

The theist, like me, is convinced almost 100% he does exist — Cornwell1

I refuse to be duped as an atheist — Cornwell1

I always enjoy a bit of pantomime based exchange, 'Oh no you don't!,' 'Oh yes you do!,'
Oh sh** not that whole 'multiple personality stuff again....aaaaarrrggghhhhh'
Don't worry, normal service will resume soon.

I tend to agree with this, but doesn't building society up by politics based on science mean giving the same power to Science as giving power to God? — Cornwell1

No, I am a democratic socialist. Checks and balances, scrutiny of intent....always and forever.

I am reminded of an old story from the early days of the Roman senate.
Anytime a conquering general came back to Rome to receive his big glorious parade.
The senate insisted that a slave be placed behind him on his horse or stood beside him in his chariot and regularly spoke the words 'remember you are just a man.' into his ear. I like that.
We must always seek out those with nefarious intent and stop them.
Unlike god, science is real but it has no power. Power comes from those who wield and control the technologies produced from the activity called science. Look to the well-used phrase.
Bombs don't kill people, people kill people.
We always had the tendency to become destroyers of worlds but that does not mean we have to.

Regarding the atheist who knows there's no all-present, all-powerful, all-effectual & transcendent sentience, does not such an atheist exemplify an ideal — ucarr

No, an atheist does not believe god exists. It's not an ideal, it's an opinion. I am an atheist but I cannot prove there is no god, no-one can, but I am personally convinced as near to 100% as you can get.
I am not being idealistic, I am not aiming for perfection, I just refuse to be as duped as a theist.

I want the generations to come to be freed from religious lies. I am not too bothered about current believers. I want the next generation to be told what we KNOW or are SCIENTIFICALLY most convinced of. That is all we should teach about truth. Let them speculate further or allow their imagination to take whatever flight of fancy it may but teach them not to make policies or build civilisations based on speculation and flights of fancy. Build on what we know!

Do you think I'm a theist? If so, why? I've been examining some details of atheism. Does my exam imply pro-Theism? If so, please cite examples — ucarr

I won't bother speculating. I am sure that if you wish to state your religious status, then you will do so.
You were trying to put forward bad evidence(in my opinion) that god exists, hence my use of 'theistic argument.'

I think you're confusing abstract conceptualization with empirical verification. — ucarr

No, I am suggesting that abstract conceptualisation is just mental athletics and without empirical verification, it remains mental athletics and nothing more than pure conjecture and can often reach the status of pure nonsense.

The other meaning I have in mind is quite different. Hint: I have written hundreds of mathematical programs in BASIC. — jgill

I wrote many programs in my very early days as a teacher in BBC BASIC.
Having to number every code line was fun eh?
Would it not just be

100 INPUT N
110 LET N=1/N
120 PRINT N

So do you mean, that such a program would just display fractions rather than provide values for N which make the equation balance?

A code line containing N=1/N is an assignment expression, not an equation.

It's tragic how you are so clear in your writing, yet are so often misread. I'm glad I am not so misunderstood, it must be a burden for you. — bert1

"Often misread" willfully by some — 180 Proof

Demonstrating an ability to express clear meaning so that all, or at least the majority of readers 'understand' what you are trying to explain, can be very difficult.
I know this, as a school teacher of 30 years experience.
One key strategy is to try to not get too inebriated with your own verbosity.

My only problem with that, is that such a standard is not applied to any other profession. Meaning, people in this thread are not consistently reasoning this out. Nobody here would say there is no clear definition of a scientist, artist, plumber, carpenter, musician, etc. It doesn't make sense if everyone understands that all of those enumerated professions are distinguished by either work in the field, or the skill requisite to perform work in that field, and yet do not apply the same standard to philosophy. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I had encountered this issue so many times, ad nauseum, that it simply had to be discussed because of how inconsistent people's views on the subject are — Garrett Travers

I have agreed with your definitions of 'philosopher' in general terms, but I do think the job title philosopher is 'more nuanced' than job titles such as physicist. I do think 'nuanced' is also true of job titles such as artist, musician, politician, cook etc. I personally don't consider Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst etc artists. Unless you put the word 'con' in front of the term. Yet that's the title they currently hold. Of all the people in the world who state the title politician in their job description, I think there are few who should actually be assigned as such. This is just my opinion of course but some job titles are more open to the subjective opinion of people compared to others

I think the last one doesn't apply in your usage. But I got the feeling — Cornwell1

Ha Ha.....Now that was an impressive list. :lol:
It is a common sound made by the great philosopher Homer Simpson, from The Simpsons cartoon show.
He says Doh! anytime his brain refuses to work properly.
:lol:

Is it objectively true that every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu

No its not because 'every truth is subjective' may not be true. Paradox is neither true or false.
To me, this just means that in propositional logic there are three states, true, false and paradox.
Nothing more exciting than that, at least for now.

playing with words, — Harry Hindu

Agreed, but it's something humans do regularly. The fact that such activity annoys some people, will not prevent it from happening.

In describing the world you're describing a shared world - one in which I exist as well, so what you are defining is what I am part of and would be describing not just you but me too. So if every truth were subjective then keep your truth to yourself because it wouldn't be useful to me in any way — Harry Hindu

Well if we all did that then conversation/debate would reduce. I don't think that would help.
The fact you might find something useless to you does not make it useful to all unless you are electing yourself a speaker for all in the same way you suggest I include you, due my deliberations.

If a measurement can have a level of accuracy then that is the same as saying a measurement has a level of truth, which I would agree with. There are degrees by which some concept or proposition can be accurate/true based on how well it represents what is the case or not — Harry Hindu

agreed. So you agree, Level of truth(accuracy) and TRUE can be different, in concept.

Isn't terror the natural and most justified human condition? — Yvonne

For some people yes, but only because they are unconvinced that alternative states are available to them. Some individuals have reported the ability to almost mentally detach themselves during torture.
Think of the operations that the medical profession can perform without causing any pain.
It seems to me that pain can be conquered. I don't claim all suffering can be conquered, achieving that is much more difficult.

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true" — Harry Hindu

The only distinction I can think of is in measurement. 'I can measure some things.'
That statement is true and is accurate but.
A measurement can never be true, it can only ever have a level of accuracy.
I think this is probably just the same as asking is there an objective truth or is every truth subjective? and I think there have been many threads on that.
I like all the fun paradox's in this area.

"The only true fact is there are no true facts!".... yeah.....that's a true fact....that there are no true facts!
Fun stuff!

Yeah, another doh! moment for me, to add to my ever-growing collection.
Thanks for correcting the oversight. Same to

So apart from Crowell1's inverse matrix question, it seems to me that all
N=1/N suggests is positive = positive and negative = negative

I think if you write positive = negative, you do require supporting context such as
Balanced/equal in quantity but opposite in 'charge?', 'Polarity?', 'magnetic attraction?'
Which would be more accurate or are they all equally valid.
I've always considered +ve and -ve numbers to owe their existence to the existence of +ve and -ve charge, and its electro/magnetic components.

But I cannot avoid my own death and it will come well before I am even close to "done" exploring life. — Yvonne

They say that we already have the technology advanced enough to defeat ageing. — pfirefry

Science is our best hope for extending human lifespan. Praying for it is useless.

My main issue in life is an inability to accept my mortality. — Yvonne

I know this doesn't satisfy many people but I personally am comforted by the old comment that;
'you didn't worry about oblivion before you were born so why worry about it after death?'

If oblivion means, unaware of ANYTHING, including time passing, then there is nothing to worry about. No hell, No hell of heaven, etc.
There is one frame of reference, within which, when you die, the Universe ends.
If you have no existence/substance whatsoever, after death and you don't experience time passing
then for you, the time left to the Universe, passes instantaneously.

There is also the proposition that death means disassembly back to component parts. This definitely happens to the body and I think it happens to the mind as well. I personally don't believe in soul or spirit.

I wish we could quantum tag every quantum that comes from a disassembling human, after death and track each item to find out how much of dead human quanta becomes part of new life, through procreation and the processes of eating/drinking/breathing. Everything is connected to everything else in that sense.
I don't fear death but I do fear the way I die and the amount of suffering I or others go through.
I offer no succor to the antinatalists. I have a very low opinion of that viewpoint.
I enjoy food most when I am hungry. I enjoy activity most when I have been inactive too long. I love good because I know evil exists. I need my suffering, its a good teacher and comparator. I do recognise that for many people, suffering is excessive but that then becomes my responsibility to help alleviate. I want to be part of the solutions not part of the problems.

Death is a harbinger of change and I welcome it as such but I don't presently seek it or rush towards it as the experience of living is filled with so much wonder.
I am not sure I would want to live for too long, I think that could become quite boring. A couple of thousand years, yeah, a million years? meh? not so attracted to that.
I don't want to die too soon, as knowing my luck, something really cool would happen the next day and I would F****** MISS IT!!
Perhaps meeting aliens, or finding a way to extend human life by a couple of hundred years or finding a quick way to terraform nearby planets and therefore be able to start to spread out into the vastness of space or starting to mine asteroids or live in space stations with artificial gravity etc)

If you really think about it, I think you, like almost everyone else is scared of how you will die not death itself because you will have NO AWARENESS AT ALL.
There's an old saying that I first heard in the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan. I think it might be biblical I don't know.

"I lay before you LIFE and the curse, therefore choose life, so thou mayest live, thou and thy seed."

What you are doing here is also the best and only way to deal with this most difficult reality for every human being alive, facing personal death. Talking about it with others who face the same is the way to go.

I have heard some people talk about the end moments of loved ones whose hand they were holding as they passed. Some of those stories are quite beautiful and peaceful.

As long as unanswered questions exist, there is no God.
If all questions have been answered then God exists as a totality of life in the Universe.
Universeness 28/01/2022 TPF

ha ha...... :naughty:

N=1/N has two very different meanings in practice. Context means everything — jgill

From reading other comments, where you gave some info about your background, your Maths is far beyond mine. I noticed that N=1/N seems to only have the solution N=1, is this the only solution?