It is true. If our feet were sliding we would not be able to walk
Now, which part of the wheel is moving twice the speed? I guess that would be the top of wheel.

The psych test might be a problem. But otherwise the military does provide a kind of meaningfulness. — jgill

Being 40 years would already disqualify a person in most of the world's military, but I imagine that something of that vein, even if not the military exactly, might be helpful. Perhaps the Air force is more tolerating.

Exactly the source of my confusion.

Well that's a surprise. I was expecting to find the name of someone else on this latest tombstone to be quite honest. — Outlander

Disappointing, isn't it?
As an even funnier, and more disappointing point, I was the one who brought boagie's behaviour to the moderation's sight.

Amazing, I personally don't even visit those threads, but if it becomes an issue in the rest of the site I will replace it with "I am not sure what I am talking about but it". It would be pretty funny.

FUCK YOU SHAKESPEAR! — boagie

Not to beat a dead horse, as he has been banned, but what did he even mean by that?

Reading list 2024:

Ulysses by James Joyce, the fisting scene specifically.

I don't think people need to be delusional because they don't share your grasp of the terminology. — mentos987

I am not saying that, but that under my definition they would be; if by "gnostic" they understand the Christian gnostics, I would not call deluled, I would call them weird instead.

Confused seems better. Even so, saying you are an atheist is usually enough to get the correct message across. — mentos987

Which is basically my original comment's point.

If it is an option, join the military.

It depends on what you mean by supernatural. If you mean stuff from God to ghosts to chakra, you could say they are agnostic about spirituality, which is a separate issue. If someone believes in God but is not religious (thus does not believe in the specific gods of world religions), the person is called irreligious theist. The label for someone that expressively denies the existence of a god is 'antitheist' in contrast to just atheism.
You could argue for the label of religious atheist as well for stuff like Buddhism and Jainism, but that is a whole other can of worms.
So to answer your answer, I would say first that those people are deluded because of "sure that our religious gods do not exist" and my comment's C. I would then say they are agnostic about spirituality, but conditionally gnostic antitheist (on the condition that those gods are the gods of Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Tengri etc).

I still believe that math is fully derived from physical reality — mentos987

It depends on what you mean by that. All knowledge starts from experience, we open our eyes as a baby before we are even able to reason and thus form knowledge.
Math, however, does not seem to fully derive/be apprehended from physical reality, because otherwise all mathematics would be applicable to physics, and that is clearly not the case — yet at least.

Music to my ears. My standpoint is this: Humans are not capable of truly original thought. What we call original thinking is just small pieces of prior experience (originating from the physical worldfrom the physical world) that we recombine in a new pattern. — mentos987

That agrees with Kant even, that all knowledge starts from experience. However, not all knowledge is derived from experience (even if it can be in some traced to it). The concept or image of a golden mountain does not come from experience but from the our ability to synthetise the gold and the mountain.

Likewise, continuing from my original post, even if many things such as vector spaces and analytic geometry ultimately derive from Peano arithmetic (I am not sure if it does, I would have to check on the axioms but I don't have time), they extend from the arithmetic, as the complex field extend from the naturals. There is nothing in nature (or in mind) that i refers to, we call it irrational for a reason, and yet, i is the basis of lots of our mathematics. From that it should follow that mathematics is not just about physical things, and thence that either numbers are not real objects or that numbers are real but not physical.

I agree with the mission of the thread, even if I disagree with some of the arguments given for.

A: The reason why someone has or lacks belief is a different topic, with atheists often replying they don't see strong enough evidence and theists using personal experience — both of those are valid even if perhaps insufficient.

B: When we ask whether someone believes something, it is a yes or no question. When we ask someone "do you believe there is life in another planet", the answer is either yes or no, as the person weights the evidence in their head. The correct answer would be "I don't positively believe either way, but given the following facts, I believe it is more likely that...", but humans don't talk like that, we say "I (/do not) believe in it".

C: Are you sure that you will wake up tomorrow? No, I could have a stroke in my sleep. Do I have any reason to believe that will happen? No, so I believe I will wake up tomorrow.
The same applies to the Sun rising. Maybe the Sun is massive enough to form a supernova, maybe a supernova can happen from one day to another, maybe an asteroid will hit the Earth and shatter it, or maybe stop its spin, maybe the United Nations did not tell us anything about any of those for some reason! It is possible. Do I believe any of those are the case? I don't believe them, because if I believe that today, I should have believed it all the other past days, because the evidence is the same (none), and it did not happen in any of those days, so I am safer saying it won't happen tomorrow either.

D: It is hardly the case that someone is truly neutral on a topic, even if they purport to be. Given a topic with more than one argument for it and against it each, each argument can have sway in a person that goes from 0 to 1, and there are infinitely many possibilities between 1 and 0 — not convinced at all by that argument being 0 and 1 being fully convinced. Being that most topics have several arguments surrounding it, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence's sway in someone's head falls exactly in the middle between belief and disbelief.

From B and D, when we ask someone whether they believe in God they should say yes or no, the uncertainty of the topic is already implied, stating whether you are an agnostic theist/atheit is redundant, and any gnostic theist/atheist has an almost impossible-to-meet burden of proof, so I say the gnostics here are either lying or confused. The agnostic label should be reserved for those who are truly divided (even if the evidence sways their mind in another direction) and prefer to suspend judgement in the await for more evidence.

I see now, Adam and Eve must be the last — or first, from where everything sprang — thesis and antithesis.

Now I ask, what is the synthesis, the absolute spirit of our Yebisu premium?

And here we go, the word "quantum".

That would require all the members of the team to be on welfare.
I second the proposal.

When you call someone antisemitic — Eros1982

I have never called someone anti-semitic because people who are antisemitic are usually also prejudiced against other racial groups, so I call them racist instead.

I have met many who are prejudiced against Arabs or prejudiced against Jews in particular. I call them prejudiced against Arabs and prejudiced against Jews, respectively.

I hardly understand how people who do not know Jews at all (were taught nothing about them) — Eros1982

So what? Many people in the west were taught nothing about the Jews too.

But it is hard for me to call a Nigerian Muslim, to take an example, antisemitic, even if that person dreams the end of Israel. Insofar as the latter was taught to see the history of Israel from the Palestinian/Arab perspective, not from the European far right perspective, he better be called Anti-Israeli or even Jewish-hater, but not antisemitic. — Eros1982

That applies to everybody because people who are against Israel are against Israel. The country of origin of someone does not change their feelings and what those feelings are called.

This whole thread is stupid. This is a philosophy forum and yet purposefully confusing oneself with very basic words and their definitions is deemed an interesting topic.

There is no need to ping everybody. The thread goes to the top of the site everytime someone posts on it.

whether differentiable — ucarr

What do you mean by differentiable here?

So, there too must be a starting-point counting number. — ucarr

You failed to show how that follows but since it is too early into the argument to be making contentions, I will just grant you.

Everything from "There’s no reductio ad absurdum re:" to "Since any and all material objects, individually, present as a countable one, oneness, a countable number, acts as an essential attribute of each and every material object." sounds like Christopher Langan, meaning complete gibberish.

The text after is confusing as well, though not undeciphrable.

Conclusion: number-as-property, being essential and physically real, and being tied inextricably to material objects, is discovered. They are not purely conceptual objects, accessible to the mind only. — ucarr

Now I understand what you are saying. It seems that, for you, numbers are something found physically in every object. That 2+2=4 is the law manifested when you push a pile of 2 objects onto another a pile of 2 and you end up with a pile of 4 objects every time. The problem with that lots of mathematics deals with infinities. The natural numbers are an infinite set, and the set of real numbers are infinitely bigger than the set of natural numbers, and it gets worse as you go into the complex field. Calculus relies on the concept of infinity. You can have an infinite amount of infinities in mathematics that just keep growing. This does not seem to relate to the physical world. There is something about mathematics that is not about just the physical world.

but that concept was brought about from observing the physical world — mentos987

I can't see how things such as calculus, vector spaces, and higher dimension geometry are somehow derived from our physical world.

Antisemitic is anyone who is against semites. That much is true as much as "blue chairs" means chairs that are blue, or 2+2=4 or the sky is blue. The reason is: otherwise, communication completely degenerates.
An Arab or Akkadian who is antisemitic must be self-hating — that is a deductive syllogism.

Some people are anti-Jewish (National-socialists) while other are anti-Zionist (Palestinians and some Jews), those two are related though different.

Since Christians and Europeans now are a minority in the Planet Earth, it makes sense, I guess, that the world antisemitic should not be applied to Asian, African and Arab critics of Israel — Eros1982

This does not make sense to me.

It wouldn't be more correct to confine the word antisemitic to the Christian and Western World, instead of using it for people who might live in Nigeria or Yemen? — Eros1982

Why? Nigerians are not semitic. It seems you just want to reserve a special word for a certain group in order to demonise them, specifically Europeans and Christians.

I've never heard of 'Daim bar,' but chocolate mixed with nuts? Ew! — javi2541997

I upvote this comment.

I am not a chocolate guy, but have you guys and girls had dark chocolate with salt?

It is very sexy.

What do you have in mind as something physically impossible, but metaphysically possible? — Relativist

By the way, I see now that our dialogue has been somewhat confused. Replying to this quote specifically, maybe the example I used here suffices? The concept of physical does not even begin to apply to the game set-up I would say, because it does not exist as a physical entity, so it lies outside the physical world, thence you can consider it physically impossible, just like it is physically impossible that God is good (because God is a metaphysical entity). Do you agree?

Love the guitar on this


Sorry for spamming, y'all :razz:

Not being logically contradictory just means it's logically possible — Relativist

Even though I said earlier that under physicalism metaphysical and physical possibility are the same thing (to which I don't agree anymore), even under those constraints, other worlds semantics would then simply have to be based on logical possibility. So we would be talking about everything that could have been (that does not violate logic) anyway, and G being double does not violate logic.

Under physicalism, if it is truly possible for the speed of light to have differed, it would have to be because the speed of light is contingent upon some law that is more fundamental. We don't know if there is such a law, and therefore we don't know if the speed of light is truly contingent. — Relativist

Right, but that law would be a law specific of this universe. Whereas there is another world in which the law is different. If we want to be physicalist about it, we can talk about multiverse.

Well say whatever you want. They are just the reflection of yourself. — Corvus

I have reported this guy to moderation already. I would suggest that you do the same if you see fit. To me, he has nothing to contribute at all, just illiterate shit-flinging.

Yes, matter contains potential energy within it. But it is not energy yet, until some detonation, crash, combustion or shock, i.e. physical or chemical processes happened in it - as thrown to a wall, or dropped down to the ground from the top of the building etc — Corvus

I think he is referring to rest mass energy. I have seen the former concept being criticised by physicists several times, so I can't really comment on it, I don't know much relativity.

BRICS has no common coin. Brazil keeps using the real, China the yuan etc. You are clearly an insane person — seek help.

You don't really understand what the BRICS are, I am guessing you are not from a country that is part of it. It is a forum spearheaded by Brazil — which is American if you did not know —, not an alliance, not an economic block. It is completely powerless as an entity. Two of the members in fact hate each other — India and China —, and the other members mostly do not care about each other.
BRICS has been around for many many years now. The fact that people have picked up on it last year is just a result of news sensationalism that fools fall for.

What makes you think the gravitational constant (or speed of light...) could have been different? — Relativist

Because it is not logically contradictory.

Other older civilizations.
Chinese migrated from older civilizations. — YiRu Li

As a small contribution, the word civilization implies a few things, such as written language. There were other societies before Chinese society of course, but none of them that we know would be classified as civilisation, as they had no written record.

What existed before the Yellow Emperor? — Beverley

Supposedly no unified China, just a collection of tribes, afaik.

Less known than his After Dark, but I would say just as good.

3,400 years ago books did record earlier ancient books' things.
So 5,000 years ago knowledge is still kept inside the 3,400-year-old books. — YiRu Li

Then you point becomes not helpful. Your choice of 5'000 thousand is for no reason (why not 6 or 8), and if it is as you say, there is nothing special about Chinese in this aspect: every language and every culture carries knowledge that is as old as mankind itself.

Generation by generation for 5,000 years. — YiRu Li

I specified above that this is inaccurate. Chinese civilisation is not 5'000 years old, it is short of 3'400, making it younger than Greek but older than Roman and about the same age as Iranian (Avestan).

Do you have something else in mind? — Relativist

Yes, by possible world I mean for example, a world where the speed of light is less, the gravitational constant is 10 times greater, etc. Those are not necessary exactly because they could have been otherwise.

100% agree. — Relativist

After doing some thinking, I am not so sure whether physicalism implies the equivalence of metaphysical and physical possibility.

I agree with you, but would just repeat that we don't, can't, know what the laws of metaphysics (if there be such) are — Janus

I explore a bit what we could consider to be metaphysical laws on my above comment.

The Laws of nature may evolve (as Peirce thought) but if that were so they would still be invariant over long periods (unless there were some kind of "punctuated evolution" as S J Gould postulated in regard to biological evolution). The laws of nature may be understood simply as the 'observed habits of nature as formulated by us). — Janus

I agree with this. But I would like to add that, if we accept causality, aren't the changes in the laws of nature caused by something? And if so, isn't that cause something that we could consider to be a more fundamental, subjacent, law of nature?

I would also like to go back to the matter of an infinite person which 180 Proof brought up, to give it a better treatment. This is a valuable point:

Well, inevitably it depends on what our concepts are. If we start with a concept of a person as a a thing with spatial limits, and infinity as without spatial limits, then an infinite person would be a conceptual impossibility. — bert1

I believe that 180's argument was confused as 'person' seems to mean something like us. It was also pointed out by another user:

All that aside, a person is commonly understood to be a human being, no? — javra

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that 'finite' is not included in the definition of 'person' (henceforth also called 'subject', so that it may also imply supernatural beings), so it does not figure a logical contradiction. If an infinite subject is that which encompasses the whole universe, it is metaphysically possible that this subject exists. If by infinite however we mean something that spans not only its world but all worlds, then it is not metaphysically possible because we know at least one world which he does not span: ours. However, I would say that by then, the definition of infinite is twisted to mean something that actually reflects "necessary (in all possible worlds)", after all.

Chinese has 5,000 years of history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago. — YiRu Li

Time for a quick fact-check.

The earliest Chinese documents are at the earliest from 1400BC, therefore China has at most 3400 years of history. Not even close to 4000, nevermind 5000. Source.

I recommend Brexpiprazole, Cariprazine, or Clozapine. Good luck and farewell!

Biology is an energy form — boagie

That is not what the word 'biology' means. Biology is the study of living beings.

"We do not experience many energy forms"
The only form of energy we do not experience is the strong gluon force, and maybe the weak force WZ if you don't count radiation as part of it.

"Just as there are no colors or sounds in the real world, so too, there are no objects in the real world"
That does not follow.

"simply energies in the forms of frequencies and vibrations"
Frequency is a concept that by itself already evokes the concept of vibration. I am not sure whether every form of energy may be described as vibration (wave), but I doubt you are either.

In any case, these two books will blow your mind:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
https://physics.info/

(Some) Mathematical structures. — 180 Proof

Abstract objects, true. I didn't think about that.

Again, the word 'substance' came from the Latin translation of the Greek 'ousia' — Wayfarer

As before, substantia is the translation of ὑπόστασις, ουσία is translated to essentia, those are separate terms (and separate pairs).

The meaning of substantia when translated back to Greek can be either ὑπόστασις or ουσία, while essentia only ουσία as far as I know.