Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection — Bob Ross

I'm just trying to figure out why you connect goodness with perfection. Do you think that perfection is always good?

I was intimating the 'poison' was confined to the forum. — AmadeusD

Ah okay, I may have misread this, thinking that you meant there may be poison on here but it is well controlled. But anyway, I had the feeling before that you seem to think generally that people are fair on here. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but it seems to have stuck in my perceptions of things.

And yet here you argue that you don't know anything about the world around you. So I don't know why we should take you seriously when you talk about experience off the forum. — wonderer1

In my view, everyone is equal in their worth. There are learning opportunities to be had from everyone, no matter if we agree or disagree with them. For example, what I learn from just a brief reading of these correspondences is that some people are quick to jump on the bandwagon when someone else's comments are not being valued or respected.

If I had any sway in anything, which I don't believe I do, I would tend to encourage people not to write comments that are too negative on here, especially if they are personally directed at specific people because then there develops a situation where people naturally become defensive. It is understandable. But the way I see it is that we are all here in our precious free time to enjoy thought provoking discussion. It seems unfortunate if that time is spent in a negative way. But I am also experienced enough to know that is what often happens in life.

My experience off this forum has me tending toward thinking the poison is quite well contained here :) — AmadeusD

I also learn that AmadeusD appears to have faith in the people in this forum, and since he has been using this forum for longer than me, I am encouraged to also see the good in people on here too.

For if one is unable to know anything about the external world, then one can not make any claims about it at all – even claiming that knowledge about it is impossible, because that too is knowing something about the external world – namely, that it is unknowable. — Thales

Not knowing about something does not mean you know about it. It means you DO NOT know about it.
You cannot get any knowledge out of anything that is unknowable, or in other words, you cannot get any knowledge if there is no knowledge there.

In fact, wouldn’t you need to bypass your own perceptions and go outside your own mind in order to make such a claim? After all, according to the argument, your own perceptions and mind are unable to determine anything about the external world. Given that argument, you would need to employ some means – other than your own perceptions and mind – to be able to verify whether or not an external world can be accessed by your internal perceptions and mind. — Thales

They DON’T know if their perceptions are dependable or not, that is the whole point. They DOUBT, or question, if they are or not. But the point is, can YOU prove it one way or another?

If we are to know anything, then don’t we need to (somehow) have access to that object of knowledge? And to have access, don’t we need a means by which we access it? When we go on a journey by automobile, we need a road to access our destination. So too with knowledge; we need a “road” (or a way) to get it. — Thales

The main way the skeptics can throw doubt on this is by saying that someone or thing PUT that information into your head. (like brains in vats, or something similar to The Matrix movie.)
Think about it like this:

I suppose you could say, well I know that the world exists, even if I know nothing about it, but according to the skeptics, you cannot know even if it exists at all. For example, if the word as you know it is really all some kind of hallucination and you live in a universe that is totally different, but you have no knowledge of the universe you live in because all you can see is the hallucination of this world, then you know nothing about the world you think you know, you only know about the hallucination.

Take another example: We solve algebraic problems by adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. This is the means by which we access – or gain knowledge about – the answer. Note that we do not identify the process of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing with the answer to the problems – they are merely the means by which we access the answer. Without adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, we can not have knowledge about (answers to) the problems. — Thales

When we do adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing etc it makes sense to us, and also, then the answer makes sense, but what if someone or thing is controlling our minds and TELLING us that it makes sense, but in reality, it doesn’t at all? Like, when in a dream, we may accept that we can be in one place one minute and then magically be in another place the next. In the context of that dream, it makes sense to us and seems normal, but in reality, it isn’t.

I guess it is like the skeptics are taking away (excuse the pun) all the adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing—or throwing doubt on all that— and if we cannot rely on that, then, as you said, we have no means of accessing the answer.

Skeptics misrepresent their critics as identifying perception with the world itself. Rather, aren’t skeptics the ones conflating process with result; confusing the road with the destination; and identifying addition, subtraction, multiplying and dividing with the solutions of algebraic problems? — Thales

I do not think that they think the images we see ARE the world. I think they accept that they are images.
But the skeptics are saying, what if we cannot trust the images we can see? If the image is all distorted, then we are not getting a true picture of the world.

Such as colour blindness or mirage/hallucinations or dreams

And one final observation: It seems to me that the skeptic is rigging the game from the start – taking away the means by which we can have knowledge of the external world in order to prove it is impossible to know anything about it. Which actually reveals another logical issue – that of assuming what is to be proven and then “proving” it (the fallacy of begging the question): — Thales

They do not assume the truth of anything, they do the opposite, they say that they do NOT know the answer.

They are not saying the world is NOT real. They are saying that they do not know if the world is real or not, and then they ask if you can say if it is real or not.

They are also not taking away the means by which we can get knowledge, they are asking if we can trust those means. How reliable are they? If we cannot rely on adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing etc then we may still have an answer, but how useful is that answer?

The same as, if we cannot rely on our senses and what we see/perceive etc then we may still know about a world, but how useful is that if the world is just a hallucination?

Just because I assume and assert that all black cats bring bad luck, it doesn’t (really) follow that bad luck befalls anyone who gets a black cat… does it?! — Thales

Are you saying, “Just because someone assumes that black cats bring bad luck, it doesn’t mean it is true.” ?

Which would be like saying, “Just because the skeptics assume the world isn’t real, it doesn’t mean it is true?”

Which would also be like saying this, just opposite:

“Just because I assume the world is real, it doesn’t mean it is true?”

What this boils down to is, we do not know either way. That is what the skeptics are questioning.

In my view, it is impossible to get around the skeptics’ doubt. Descartes thought he had, but he hadn’t. The truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that nobody can know ANYTHING for absolute certain. But we, as humans, do not like to accept this, and hence, you get people like Descartes who went to absolute extremes to dispel the doubt because he so desperately didn’t want to accept it. But the fact is, we have been living for millennia without knowing everything for certain, and we haven’t done too bad. Of course, there have been many times when we THOUGHT we knew things for certain, and then we found out later that we were wrong. But then we just moved on.

I believe the important thing is to keep trying, to keep searching for the truth, even if we are aware we may not totally get there, because there are levels of certainty. So, some things are much more likely to be true than others, and we can base things on this to some extent. It seems prudent to do so.

For example, say a plane crashed, and the airline wanted to work out why it had crashed to prevent it from happening again, if they didn’t take into account ‘likelihood’ then they could just as easily say the fact that there had been a black cat at the side of the runway at the time was the reason for the crash. Then they might go out and shoot all the black cats in the area. (I am against cat shooting by the way) But taking likelihood into account would probably mean that they would inspect the mechanics and electrics etc of the plane from top to bottom. Then, if they found something wrong, they could fix it, which seems to be a lot safer bet than shooting all the black cats (and the black cats get to live! Yay. Poor black cats, they are given such a bad name!)

The other thing that always springs to my mind is, we may think we want to know the answers to everything, but do we really? Okay so, suddenly we know the answers to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. So, now what? What do we do next? Is there any point anymore? First of all, we may as well shut down this forum. There would be absolutely no point in philosophy anymore. Somehow, there seems to be a great irony here because we need to keep searching for truth to keep motivation in our lives, but once we find all the truth, we lose all the motivation we were trying to keep!

Who's opinion ought I express, if not my own?
— Banno

Of course you should express your own opinion — Beverley

Oops, silly me, I missed off the most important thing... in my view: there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing one's own opinion though.

Banno is uniquely immune to caring about anything but destructive (in the literary sense) critique "hereabouts" (not sure he knows "here" is adequate). I don't think he's going to be partial to this kind of appeal.
I'd leave him to it. — AmadeusD

I think you might be right there.

Who's opinion ought I express, if not my own? — Banno

Of course you should express your own opinion. I am a big believer in everyone having a right to their own opinions :) But, I was just pointing out that it was just that: an opinion, not a fact.

None of which changes the fact that the posts here are mostly rubbish. — Banno

'Rubbish' in your opinion. You're getting confused between opinion and fact.

Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well. — Banno

I care about people. I also realize that you are expressing your views, not facts. But I further know that you may see things differently to me, and I can respect that. I personally would be a lot more mindful of being understanding towards others, but everyone is different.

I feel the need to point out that the folk here are not philosophers, and that the rubbish on this thread is no more philosophy than the random unfounded speculation found elsewhere on the internet is physics or maths. — Banno

Yes, but what I am wondering is why do you feel the need? Ah, I know, it must be to help us poor people out, to let us know that we are not philosophers because, after all, if you say we are not, it must be true. How lucky we all are to have you to set us straight. If there is so much ‘rubbish’ on this thread, I only wonder why you have wasted so much time reading all of it, and then going even further by actually taking the time to comment on it.

Me, I may not agree with everything other people say, but I have the decency to respect their views and not attempt to demean them. I don’t see any good reason for doing that at all.

I objected to jgill's apparent claim that mathematics is superior to philosophy. — Gregory

Sorry, I think I got confused about who was referring to who. My mistake.

It has lots of practical truths but it's still in the Cave as far as philosophy is concerned — Gregory

I'm not sure I see science as being in the cave for philosophy at all. I suppose it depends on how someone views and uses the information/theories etc from science. If you just accepted it all without question, then that could be problematic. However, I don't think truth in science nowadays is often thought of as being final. It is constantly being questioned, which I think is a good thing. In the past, on the other hand, people were severely punished for questioning too much, such as Socrates, or in scientific fields, Galileo springs to mind. If people were not free to search for truth, and science was dictated to by the people in power then, yes, in that sense, science could be seen to be in the cave. I would like to think that these days there is less 'cave dwelling' than in the past, but I guess realistically, there still are a fair few dastardly caves... if they are plural, or is there just one, big, overcrowded cave?

So if nothing, either thought or matter, ever existed, how can we cognize that state of affairs? — Gregory

Because we cognize it now because now we exist. But we did not, or could not, cognize it then obviously.

Why this interest in absolute nothing unless it is connected to the human concern over death? What relevance does it have for students of philosophy? — Gregory

I'm not sure how one could say why someone has an interest in something. Or why we should need to. In my opinion, it is a valid topic and brings up debate and discussion, which to my mind is an important part of philosophy. Who knows if discussion about nothingness might give us the answers to everything. (Although I doubt it because I don't believe there is an answer to everything, but I don't know for sure.) I don't see philosophy as limited to only certain subjects and discussions.

You seem to be saying that mathematics is a greater source of truth than philosophy's pursuit of the ineffable. The later can't be put into words but it can be pointed at and knowledge of this wordless truth can grow — Gregory

You seem to be making philosophy so powerless, as if we cannot talk about certain things. To me, that is the whole point of philosophy. To me, it is the pursuit of truth and knowledge however we come about it. Mathematics and sciences—and other subjects too—are also in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, only they are in their specific fields; philosophy isnt limited to a specific field. I can't imagine 'philosophy ' saying, "hold on, you got, or are attempting to get, to that truth through maths or science, therefore that truth is of less value." Besides, I don't see them as being separate things. But that is just my view. I have no doubt some other people would disagree.

It isn't. Nothing is not a thing that exists. When I eat my only apple, I don't then have a number of apples remaining, and that number is 0. The absence of apples is not a thing that exists. — Patterner

You are exactly right

For something to exist/be true, it must be
a thing. — Ø implies everything

The problem with this is that 'nothing' is NOT a thing, it is the LACK of a thing. However, lack of something can be true. For example, black is the lack/or absence of light, but it is still true that it is black and lacking light. Nothing is the lack of a thing, but it is still true that it is nothing and lacking a thing.

Bearing this in mind, if we alter your statement to take this into account, we get:

"For ‘nothing’ to be true there must not be a thing."

This seems to make sense to me. (unless I am missing something?) Obviously, when I say 'nothing' I mean the concept of lack of a thing, not 'nothing being true'. Using 'nothing' in sentences can appear to have many meanings, which confuses things somewhat!

If there "was" absolute nothingness, there would be no definition, no contradiction, no nothing — Ø implies everything

If absolute nothingness was a truth, then there would be no definition because there would be no humans to give it a definition. However, it would not make it any less true or lacking in something.

You see, absolute nothingness is only impossible if there is something to begin with. — Ø implies everything

I have been trying to figure out what you were getting at here. Breaking this down, in this sentence, if we take out “only,” and “to begin with” then we get, “absolute nothingness is impossible if there is something.” Of course. This is clearly correct; you just defined nothingness.

Now, if we take into account the word ‘only’, this suggests that there are circumstances when absolute nothingness IS possible, such as if you swap your sentence around to say, “absolute nothingness IS possible if there is NOT something.” This is also very true, but also very obvious. I am guessing you must be getting at more than just this.

So, now if we consider “to begin with”, if there was nothing to begin with, then there would be nothing, which is what absolute nothingness requires. The only thing I can think of that you might mean is that, if nothingness is lack of something then you must have something to take away, to make it lacking??? But, hmmm. Why can it not be so that there was nothing, or lack of even one thing, to start with? ? I cannot see any reason why absolute nothingness would be hypothetically impossible, and therefore, there does not appear to be a circular reasoning...as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong???

As far as I can see, the options we have regarding this are these… I think, but there may be more that I just haven’t thought of…

• Absolute nothingness
• Absolute something AND nothingness
• Absolute somethingness (Okay, I should probably take the ‘ness’ off this, but I just like the way it sounds and fits in with all the above.)

Strangely, I think that maybe the last one, absolute somethingness, would be the only impossible one. This is why: I believe that we are currently, in the absolute something and nothingness stage. This is because,

physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space. — jgill

That is self-contradictory. The space is not empty if there are fields in it. These kinds of retorts seem to rise from a confusion of exactly how absolute the absolute nothingness is. We are talking "about" the inexistence of anything definable and undefinable; the inexistence of absolutely everything.
— Ø implies everything — jgill

Okay, I think we understand the concept of absolute nothingness, but strangely enough, it is the 'fields' of empty space, or areas of nothing, in our universe that appear to be preventing absolute nothingness. If one day, for some reason, those fields of nothingness disappeared, then there would be absolute nothingness. (An idea that seems so ironic) This is because the fields of nothing, such as the vacuums we find in outer space and in the very fabric of the atoms that everything is made from, are the reason why things are held apart. If things were not held apart, then everything would cancel itself out and we would have absolute nothingness... in our universe at least—I cannot say about other universes, if there are such things. (NOTE I have covered why everything would cancel itself out in another post. I have included it here at the end of this post, but it can be skipped if you already know why.)

To sum up, it would seem as if absolute nothingness could hypothetically exist, and may have previously existed. We know that absolute something AND nothingness can exist because we are living it now, but it seems as if absolute somethingness might be impossible because, once you put EVERYTHING together without any spaces between things, then everything cancels itself out. (Either that or it would become unimaginably crowded, and I think I would have to move to a different universe to get some peace and quiet!)... and yes, I know that if there was another universe to move to with empty spaces in it then absolute nothingness and absolute somethingness would not exist, but I was joking, and there may well not be a thing as another universe.

Why everything could cancel itself out:

E=MC^2 tells us that mass and energy are the same physical entity.

Admittedly, we are all to some extent relying on theories in these discussions, but these theories are pretty well known and widely accepted, and E=MC^2 has been tested and proven to be accurate.

Basically, energy and mass are equivalent because energy can change into mass, and mass can change into energy. But in a closed system, such as the universe, there is a set amount of energy, (The Law of Conservation of Energy = energy cannot be created or destroyed) and hence, a set amount of mass too—or I suppose, to put it more accurately, whatever state the mass/energy is in, there is only a set amount of it.

The reason that there is C^2, or the speed of light squared, also in the equation is because energy travels at the speed of light, and the reason that this is squared—which makes it into an incredibly huge number— is because a tiny amount of mass/matter can be transformed into huge amounts of energy. We see this when we split atoms, as huge amounts of energy are generated out of only a tiny amount of mass. But, as stated before, it doesn’t matter how much mass, energy and speed combo we have, or at what stage the mass or energy is, because if we take the universe as a whole, there is always a set amount of mass/energy. Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states.

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.)

If two objects are apart, then there is a store of gravitational potential energy in them, which ‘wants’ to pull them together. (This is what keeps the planets in our solar system) If those two objects are then moved closer together, then the gravitational potential energy decreases negatively as the positive kinetic energy increases. The two are opposites, one positive energy, and one negative energy. Due to balancing of forces and charges—and other equilibriums we see in the structure of the universe— it is believed that the total positive energy must equal the total negative energy. This would mean, if we take the universe in its totality, then the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, leaving overall zero energy….and mass.

You are selling yourself too short. You have brought up plenty of good points. — wonderer1

Thank you so much for your positivity and encouragement. I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday, as we all sometimes do, and just a little positivity is what i so needed to hear. It is not even so much about agreeing with someone, it is just being able to appreciate someone else's point of view and seeing that it too has value. It is funny how we often do not realize how much just a few positive words can so greatly affect someone else. Thank you.

It is more likely that one of us is making an error somewhere either in our position, or our responses — AmadeusD

It’s sad to think of it as an error on anyone’s part because the way I see it is that we all turn to this philosophy forum in our free time for the pleasure it brings us to connect and explore the subject that we all love: philosophy. I am guessing that no one comes here to experience feeling bad in any way. And yet, I sometimes get the feeling that this is what happens: when there is too much conflict and feeling of ‘you are wrong, and I am right’ then suddenly it becomes more of a power struggle than a joy.

I first became aware of what philosophy entails around two years ago, when I was asked to do a philosophy course for my first semester at university. I didn’t have a clue what the subject entailed, but I soon discovered that I had been ‘philosophizing’ for as long as I could remember and just hadn’t been able to put a name to it. I was studying in Canada at the time, but still working online in the UK, so sometimes I would have to work at 4 am Canada time (which was midday UK time) and then get up and be in Uni for 8 am for a philosophy lecture and seminar. I didn’t care though because I loved it so much that, despite having such little sleep, I was so energized by the discussions we had and the connections and friendships I made. I am trying to think if I ever felt like we were in a competition in the discussions and seminars, and I honestly do not remember feeling like that. We simply talked and laughed and told stories about our experiences, and related them to philosophical concepts. I am sure I probably didn’t necessarily agree with everything everyone said, but it didn’t matter somehow. I never really thought about it because I was so engaged and thinking in ways I had never thought before.

I think I was somehow trying to emulate that here. The problem is, when someone feels as if someone else is trying to compete, or show them up, or better them, then they automatically feel defensive, but then this makes the other person feel defensive in return, and this continues. I am seeing this often in discussions on philosophy forums, and I think it is a shame because, to me, that is not what philosophy is all about. To me, it is about the pleasure of discovery and connecting with other minds, so that we are not all alone in our own heads (Like Descartes was, I guess)

I think in these exchanges, I was trying to find a common ground, to see if we could work together to find a way to make the universe ‘matter’, because it just seems so depressing to think that it doesn’t. But I do realize that not everyone sees eye to eye. I wasn’t feeling my usual positive self yesterday, and I think it showed in my responses. Sorry for that.

I’ve just realized how much I have written, and now I’m worried that I’ve gone totally off subject, and I am going to be in trouble for it! If so, and I did something bad, I am sorry, but somehow, here seems to be the best place to say this because these exchanges prompted me to express all of this.

It is so late again here (UK time), but one thing that is now making me smile is this:

I have to say, quite a bit of this response seems to be a bit mystical. Is that how you are writing? — AmadeusD

I have never thought of my writing like that, but I asked my husband today, “Do you think I am mystical?” and he replied, “Never before in your life have you been mystical.” Lol But he is from Yorkshire and the most down to earth person you could ever meet. I, on the other hand, live my life in the clouds, or floating around the universe mystically! But, now you’ve mentioned it, I think I’ll keep that label for a while; I quite like the idea of being a little mystical!

That, to me, is not the same as what you're objecting to — AmadeusD

Objecting? I'm not objecting at all. We are not in a court of law! lol I don't see this as a competition or something. I am just expressing ideas, which clearly don't make any sense to you. Ooops, sorry for that. It is my fault for not speaking clearly. I just like to hear other people's ideas and views on things and to converse about it all. I see it as something we all benefit from by learning from each other. (Even though you probably didn't learn much from me because I have not been making sense, eeek!) All the more kudos to you for carrying on with the exchange.

I don’t think I was trying to compare and necessarily say that atoms closer to the time of the big bang are more important than atoms now. I think I was trying to say they would be equally important, as in, if we were to suddenly take you out of the universe, or make it so that you don’t exist anymore in the universe, then the universe wouldn’t exist because you constituted a part of it. That would make both the atoms that you are made up of, and those same atoms in whatever state they were in at the time of the big bang, equally important for the existence of the universe. I guess there is a difference with the wheel and internet example because the internet doesn't consist of what the wheel used to.

But I can't see how it relates to experiencing the total Universe. — AmadeusD

What I've been trying to demonstrate in different ways is that if you cannot accept that we can experience the universe without having to be everywhere all at once, then everything turns very odd and nothing seems to make sense, such as, in the same way as we cannot experience the entire universe, we cannot experience the entire of anything, or the fact that nothing appears to matter, or that, if we take the total of the universe, nothing exists.

But maybe there is a different way of looking at it whereby we can have our cake and eat it, as in, we can experience all of the universe, and it can all make sense too. (Or… maybe not because, let’s face it, nothing is ever certain, but I am up for trying if you are up for listening.)

I need to address this comment first though:

if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us.
— Beverley

Why? They are different things. An apple is within your grasp. — AmadeusD

As a very simplified example of how my comment relates to the apple you can grasp, it obeys the rule of the universe that, if someone is close enough to an apple, and there is an apple there, then it can be grasped. This applies anywhere in the universe. Just because you are not on the other side of the universe (if there is another side of it) and cannot grasp an apple there, or anything else that is there, it doesn’t mean that the same rules don’t apply. It is just a case of you being somewhere different that, at the moment, is too far away for you to go. The laws that we have discovered over centuries come from huge numbers of observations and experiments to find constants that we can observe here on earth, but that we can also deduct applying out there in space. Until a new idea is deemed to be universal, it is not accepted.

Bearing that in mind, this occurs to me: we can experience the universe here on earth, or at least, it is not impossible… or, it is possibly not impossible. The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well. By experiencing these laws here on earth, we are actually experiencing the essence of the universe, the essence being the core of something or what makes that thing, that thing. If you experience something's essence, you have experienced something even more profound than just its surface features. Surely this means that you have experienced it very deeply. Maybe that is why the universe matters so much because it relates ultimately to everything we know and everything we are.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but hte equation you've noted shows this is not the case. Energy is equal to Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Not Mass as it is. Very much either i'm missing something or this is totally wrong. — AmadeusD

I’m pretty sure this part is not wrong. Admittedly, we are all to some extent relying on theories in these discussions, but these theories are pretty well known and widely accepted, and E=MC^2 has been tested and proven to be accurate.

Basically, energy and mass are equivalent because energy can change into mass, and mass can change into energy. But in a closed system, such as the universe, there is a set amount of energy, (The Law of Conservation of Energy = energy cannot be created or destroyed) and hence, a set amount of mass too—or I suppose, to put it more accurately, whatever state the mass/energy is in, there is only a set amount of it.

The reason that there is C^2, or the speed of light squared, also in the equation is because energy travels at the speed of light, and the reason that this is squared—which makes it into an incredibly huge number— is because a tiny amount of mass/matter can be transformed into huge amounts of energy. We see this when we split atoms, as huge amounts of energy are generated out of only a tiny amount of mass. But, as stated before, it doesn’t matter how much mass, energy and speed combo we have, or at what stage the mass or energy is, because if we take the universe as a whole, there is always a set amount of mass/energy. Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states.

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.)

Why? What negative energy? Im totally lost as to what you're really referring to.. — AmadeusD

Okay, it was late last night, and I didn’t explain this properly at all; I was being lazy, and for that, I apologize. Hopefully, this will explain things a bit better:

If two objects are apart, then there is a store of gravitational potential energy in them, which ‘wants’ to pull them together. (This is what keeps the planets in our solar system) If those two objects are then moved closer together, then the gravitational potential energy decreases negatively as the positive kinetic energy increases. The two are opposites, one positive energy, and one negative energy. Due to balancing of forces and charges—and other equilibriums we see in the structure of the universe— it is believed that the total positive energy must equal the total negative energy. This would mean, if we take the universe in its totality, then the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, leaving overall zero energy….and mass.

Hopefully this makes more sense now????

This seems problematic to me.
— Beverley

It is. — AmadeusD

I've just thought of an even bigger problem, quite a huge one actually. If we take the universe as a whole, then it would seem that nothing exists. But since things do appear to exist, if we cannot experience those things as a PART of the universe, then it would seem that we are not part of that universe.

For example, if we say that all positive energy is cancelled out by all negative energy (or gravity), then as a universe in its totality, there is no energy. And, as stated previously, if E=MC^2 and energy is equal to mass, then if there is no energy, then there is no mass either (which we may understand from matter and antimatter.)

I will try to explain the above a bit more clearly. So, as part of Einstein's theory of relativity— which is what we base our understanding of the universe on— E=MC^2 or, energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, tells us that energy and mass are equal to each other. But, when considering the universe in its totality, it would seem that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative energy, gravity. I seem to remember it being explained by Stephen Hawking as something like, if we are to pull two objects apart, then the energy that counters the energy we expend comes from the gravity between those two objects. If, in the universe as a whole, all the positive energy is cancelled out by all the negative energy, then the same applies to mass, or matter and antimatter. But this only applies when we take the universe as a whole.

the room only consists in it's actual dimensions. — AmadeusD

Do you mean that the room only consists of its dimensions? Like the universe, wouldn’t the room have to consist of its contents too? But anyway, take any object in that room; it consists of the total number of atoms that make that object. Therefore, I guess that again, you could say we cannot experience anything totally because we cannot directly experience atoms. As with the universe, we have problems with size.

Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in.
— Beverley

I suppose this particular position (which i don't take) resists time as a meaningful dimension to experience. — AmadeusD

I have just had an odd thought…

If everything around us changes constantly— and this is why no two people can experience those things in the same way— then strictly speaking, the universe is potentially the ONLY thing that we can experience. (I am basing this on the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and E=MC^2 tells us that mass and energy are the same physical entity, then mass cannot be created or destroyed either. This would mean that, if we take the universe in its totality, then nothing in it changes, and if nothing in its totality changes, then this is the only thing we could all potentially experience in the same way.) But, if you were to say, nonetheless, we cannot experience the universe, then we are back to, then we cannot experience anything. This seems problematic to me.

I think the problem I have with this idea of not being able to experience the universe, and hence, it not mattering to us, (and I think I did not express this clearly before) is that, if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us. Therefore, if we cannot experience the universe, then we cannot experience anything. And if we cannot experience anything, then nothing matters. BUT… something doesn’t seem right here. Is there any way of untangling ourselves out of this?

we don’t experience the universe — AmadeusD

I’ve been trying to think if I believe this to be true or not. I think I’m right in saying that you mean we cannot experience ALL of the universe. That got me wondering if we can experience ALL of anything. To test out this idea, I was trying to think of an example of something people seem to experience, and for some strange reason, skydiving popped into my head. Okay so, can someone experience ALL of skydiving? Most people would assume that if they got in a plane, it flew up into the sky and they jumped out of it, then they had experienced skydiving. However, did they experience ALL of skydiving? I would say no because they would have had a different experience than someone else. In fact, they would have had a different experience than another time they did, or will do, skydiving themselves. Each time their experience would be different, to a greater or lesser degree.

Okay so, you may say that perhaps skydiving is not a good example, or not a fair comparison, to the universe because the universe is a place, not an activity. So, let’s apply this idea to a place. Can we experience ALL of a place? I suppose you could say that if there was a particular room you were in often, you could experience ALL of that room. But, well, if we are going to be really literal, then perhaps not because wouldn’t your experience of that room depend on what was in it, or perhaps how it was decorated, wall colour, curtains, flooring etc? What if someone redecorated the room and put in new furniture? Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in.

But if we are to be not so literal, and we say, okay, we could possibly experience all of that room as it is currently, is that simply because of the size of the room? Of course, the universe is unimaginably huge, so this would mean it is unimaginably difficult, or impossible, to experience ALL of it. But where do we draw the line? Are we saying that no one can experience anything bigger than a room? What about a house? Okay, we could experience a house. What about a garden? Or a park you walk through often, or a city you live in and travel across daily? I guess we could say that nobody experiences the world because it is impossible for anyone to visit and know every part of that, in a similar way to how we cannot go to, and know, every part of the universe. But somehow, it seems to now come down to, well, perhaps we can experience things and places even if we do not experience ALL of them.

we don’t experience the universe, just conceptualise it — AmadeusD

Oh dear. And what does "conceptualise" mean? — Ciceronianus

This idea of conceptualising the universe, and therefore, perhaps it cannot matter, also got me thinking. Now, I could well be wrong, but there seems to be examples of things people cannot experience the whole of, and can only conceptualise, but that appear to matter very much to them. People conceptualise Heaven and Hell and this matters a whole lot to them, so much so that people—I think probably more in the past—chose to be burnt alive rather than renounce their belief in them. What about Plato’s World Of Forms? That mattered a lot to him, and to others. The environment also springs to mind. Many people are passionate about preserving the environment, and it matters a lot to them, and yet, they cannot experience all of it. It is just a concept.

From my point of view, I would definitely say that I have a relationship with the universe. I care about it, I want it to continue, I want it to be ‘healthy’, just as the environmentalists want our world to be ‘healthy’. I am also fascinated by it, as are many other people. It seems to matter to some enough to expend huge amounts of time and effort on discovering as much as they can about it. I imagine someone suddenly saying, "I know, let's get rid of the universe." If they were able to do that, I am sure there would be a fair few people who would answer, "Hold on a minute, let's not!" That would seem to indicate that the universe matters to those people.

But I am definitely open minded, and I absolutely love all the thinking that has come just from these ideas that I had never thought of before. If anyone can dissuade me from my perhaps foolish belief that I have a relationship with the universe, and that it matters to me, then I am open to that.

it would need to matter to something/one outside of it. — AmadeusD

Why can't it matter to the people inside it? Am I just being dense or something? I can't figure out why it only has to matter to someone/thing outside of it. Just the same as the world matters to us, if the world is in the universe, doesn't that matter too? I'm sure I'm probably missing something really obvious here, but right now, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. Lol

Here are some of my thoughts on this, for what they are worth. (They may be worthless, but in the slight hope that they are worth something, here they are)

(...Or maybe, if I am the only person in the universe, then they are worth EVERYTHING! Who the hell knows?)

So, for me, it all comes down to the Big Bang. This, as a theory, makes sense to me. We can actually measure distances in space, and therefore, we know that celestial bodies are moving away from us. If we simply rewind, then everything in this universe at one point was in the same place at the same time. This means that if just one atom that was present then, was not present right now, then the universe, as we know it, would not exist. Now, considering how many atoms just one person consists of, then it makes sense to me HOW MUCH JUST ONE SINGLE PERSON MATTERS. Of course, you could say, well, does it matter if the universe exists or not? But, I would say that most people would answer: yes.

Looking beautiful is all there is to success in society. — Wittgenstein

I often see the opposite being the case, for some reason. Take one person who is considered by many to be the most beautiful woman of all time: Marilyn Monroe. Her life was filled with misery and ended in disaster. For many 'beautiful' people, their looks are often a burden, not an advantage. (This may be more true for women though, but I am not certain) Many beautiful women are not taken seriously and degraded. When I see a very good looking guy, I immediately feel as if I could not trust him. I almost feel as if one should NOT be good looking if they are to be considered by others as intelligent and trustworthy.

but I belive that noone is ever 100% sure — mentos987

I agree totally. One hundred percent certainty just does not exist. (Apart from maybe in Plato's World of Forms, but then we would have to 100 percent believe in that, which is impossible, and hence, we find ourselves in a vicious circle.)

It didn't exist even one day before Yellow Emperor. — YiRu Li

What existed before the Yellow Emperor?

Could you explain why? — frank

Because we would really like you to stay our democratic ally.

All governments take the credit for work that came before them — Tom Storm

"All"? Are you sure?

And the idea that there is one accurate account of hsitory is itself farcical. — Tom Storm

There isn't one 100% accurate account of anything! But I am talking about getting a general gist of what happened in the past. A huge part of being a historian is weighing up bias and trying to get the closest to the truth as possible. No historian worth their salt would dare to announce that they had found a 100% accurate account of the past. But this doesn't mean that there isn't value to studying history.

Do any countries tell the truth about their past? — Tom Storm

Are you talking about the people or the governments? It seems hard to tell the difference, and it also seems like a big grouping of a lot of people, but anyway, I would say that as much truth is told about a country's past as is told about a person's past. We all lie to others, and ourselves, but this doesn't mean that we are incapable of being truthful as well. (I mean 'truthful' as far as we know) But then again, these are just my thoughts, based on how I see things. I could be totally wrong, but I love the debate and hearing other people's views on things. :)

It will be close, though. — frank

I’m just praying you come out of it still a democracy! Sorry, but I’m just saying what many other people around the world are thinking about, some rubbing their hands together and waiting with smug looks on their faces, thinking that it’s only a matter of time, and others, like me, praying you lot pull together because we could really do with you putting your differences aside and showing a united front right now! Okay, rant over. (I’m still quietly praying though.)

But isn't this what all governments say? — Hanover

To my mind, governments have no power over civilization and culture, since governments are controlled by the people, and the people make civilizations and culture. Civilizations and cultures also exist for a lot longer than governments.

You may say that all those people are totally wrong about the records of history/culture etc, but that is a lot of people to be wrong. (Of course, nobody, or group of people, are 100 percent correct, and we are talking about history, so there is always some ambiguity, but I mean grey areas, not black and white. You could, as we know, say that everything is uncertain. But I am talking about what is most likely, and that is that the history of China, as it has been recorded, is as true as any history (I suppose, including what exactly we all did yesterday!)

So the mind contains the thoughts. — Lionino

What if there is no container?

In a way, you could say he is thoughts, but what he say he is is the res cogitans, the thinking agent, or his soul. — Lionino

Okay, you've got me thinking now. So, is it just his belief that he is the res cogitans? How did he know he wasn't simply the thoughts?

Descartes says that he is distinct from his body. So he uses instead his thoughts (mental) to prove something mental, himself. — Lionino

I'd forgotten about that. But, if he believes he is distinct from his body, then isn't he only thoughts? What else could he be?

My answer to that question was, when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. I may still believe in the existence of the world without perceiving it, but the ground for my belief in the existence is much compromised in accuracy and certainty due to lack of the warrant for the belief. — Corvus

I thought about this a lot when I first found this forum. I walked around with this in my head for a few days. I even made a whole Word Doc of notes on my thoughts. Then I realized that I couldn't post anything until I had been accepted into the forum. Now I have, here are some of my thoughts:

If we are concerned with the 'ground for' your belief, then I assume what you are looking for is some justification.

Firstly, if you are justified to believe in what you can perceive in front of you, then doesn’t it follow that if you have never perceived the world not existing, then it is not justified to believe in that?

(At this point, I tend to have an argument with myself to see what holes there are in my reasoning. This was the result)

You may then argue, 'But aren’t you then relying on memory? I mean, maybe you did perceive the world not existing, but you just cannot remember it, and, as we all know, memory is unreliable."

Perhaps, but it doesn't seem logical that you would forget something as significant as the world not existing. Therefore, it seems more justified to believe that this never happened. Furthermore, if you cannot trust your memory, then you cannot trust your memory of what you perceived in front of you just now, or any time, or that perceiving something in front of you ever even happened.

"But," you may say, "you can trust it at the moment it happens."

Hmm, but the moment it happens, it becomes the past, and then you are relying on memory, which cannot be relied on.

"But what if memory gets less reliable the further into the past something is," I hear you say.

Well then, how can you tell how far into the past something is if you cannot rely on your memory? Something may seem to have happened recently, but you just forgot that it happened a long time ago, and therefore it cannot be relied upon.

"Okay but, what if you experienced nothing, but you were so traumatized by it that your brain blocked it out?" you may say.

In this case, there is no world, but you are unaware of that. Therefore, as far as you are aware, you have never experienced the world not existing, and your reason for believing in the world is justified.

Is that enough justification?

So, at night I open the book, and start reading it. Due to the darkness I must switch on the light before reading it. With no light on, there is no vision. It is total darkness. I cannot even see the book. It is just total darkness. When the light is on, the book is visible. I can read it. In this case, was I seeing and reading the book, or was I seeing and reading the reflected light from the book? — Corvus

You were seeing light being reflected off the book. You would only see light directly from the object if it was luminous, meaning that it emits its own light. The filament of a light bulb is an example of a luminous object; it emits its own light. This light then bounces off the book to your eyes, enabling you to see an image of the book.

Objects can absorb, emit, transmit and reflect light. When objects absorb light, they don’t necessarily absorb all waves of the visible light spectrum, they reflect some. So, for example, if you turned on your light to read your book, and you looked down, and the cover of your book looked blue, this would mean that your book cover had absorbed all the waves of the visible light spectrum, apart from blue. (absorbing red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, violet, and reflecting blue light waves back to your eyes) Since your book is not transparent, you cannot see the light inside, you only see the light reflected from the outside, in this case, blue.)

(reflect = something bounces off the surface, absorb = something goes inside, emit = something moves back outside after being inside, transmit = something passes through)

An object that looks black absorbs all the waves of the visible light spectrum and does not reflect any light waves. (We can only see a black object because it contrasts with the light around it. Therefore, when you read the text of your book, you are noticing the lack of light compared to the light around it) Actually, what usually happens is, when light waves are absorbed, the energy is transferred to the electrons of the atoms, and they increase in energy levels. In some objects, so much energy is absorbed that there is excess energy, which is then emitted out again in the form of light. These objects are described as being luminous objects, and they are where visible light originates from, like the Sun, or the filament of a bulb.

The red side of the spectrum includes longer waves, which are less energetic than the shorter blue/indigo/violet waves. When electricity flows through the filament of a bulb, it transfers excess energy to it, and hence, the filament begins to emit that energy in the form of light.(and heat etc) At first, less energy is emitted, as less electricity has transferred energy to it. At this stage, the filament will emit the shorter, less energetic red light waves. However, after time, more energy is transferred from the electric current and the filament will glow orange and eventually blue/white. At this stage, it is emitting the shorter, more energetic blue waves as well.

But what I was trying to say (before I ended up writing rather a lot about light waves!) was that if we can see images of objects, there MUST be objects/physical things around us, that are either emitting their own light, or reflecting light emitted from other objects. This would seem to prove that there are objects around us.

Hopefully this all makes sense, and I haven't over complicated things :/

We see the reflected light, but if there was nothing to reflect off, then we would not see the light. Therefore, it seems as if just the fact we can see the light means that there must be objects around us. We may see the objects differently from what they actually look like, meaning the images may be distorted, but there must be some sort of physical objects for us to see images of them.

Can there be success without the possibility of failure? — Leontiskos

If success means accomplishing your aim, and your aim is to do what you think is best for yourself, then I don’t see how this isn’t an example of success in this case. But maybe I am missing something.

I think most everyone recognizes that it is possible to act and choose in ways that are not in their best interest. Anyone who has experienced regret should recognize this. — Leontiskos

Yes, you can regret afterwards, when you realize that you made the wrong decision, but you don’t purposefully set yourself up for regret. At the time, you think you are doing the best thing for you. Even taking this to the extreme, if someone commits suicide, at the time, they were doing what they thought was best for them, to stop their suffering. Maybe addiction doesn’t fit with the idea of doing what that person thinks is best for themselves, but I’m not sure even about that. At the time, the addictive action brings relief. Even if someone is very selfless and gives up their life to save others, they only do this because they care, and therefore, they are doing it because it makes them feel as if they are good and this is rewarding. If they didn’t give a fig, then they wouldn’t give up their life because it wouldn’t benefit them at all. I cannot think of a situation where someone would do something purposefully against their own best interests at the time as they see it.