I was under impression, philosophy is something that cost nothing. Just sit down and think about something in critical way, that is philosophy, is it not?

Not sure if it happened or not. I thought it did.
Anyways, I got some books by Delueze, Derrida and Foucault, and will be reading them. So it will be happening in my reading room for sure.

Humans are endowed with reasoning and linguistic capabilities, but when it comes to intuition, animals could be far more intuitive? Animals have higher sensory perceptive power such as smells, sights and hearings ... etc too.

Not being able to know what is going on in one's own body worsens unpredictability of one's life. I saw many 20s and 30s people who had suffered strokes, and confined in wheelchairs cared by the family and the staff in the hospice while caring for my father at the time. Youth didn't look like, it means much for any certainty in their own life at all.

This video is telling a lot more about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4

Sorry, the above quote was not from a reader, but a famous physicist Raymond Frederick .

"Raymond Frederick "Ray" Streater (born 1936) is a British physicist, and professor emeritus of Applied Mathematics at King's College London. He is best known for co-authoring a text on quantum field theory, the 1964 PCT, Spin and Statistics and All That."

Another quick scan on the link page, and from the passing thought. I think it is very interesting stuff, although totally new topics to me. Will keep reading and thinking about it. As you say, no rush.

Don’t rush. It’s perplexed many of the greatest physicists of the century. — Wayfarer

I agree with the comment made by one of the readers on the MWI theory, and the Universal WaveFunctions page in the link.

"The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. [...] We find the laws of Nature by reproducible experiments. The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system."

Just based on UWF and MWI, if one can say there are many worlds out there, that does not sound feasible at all.

I could go with the theory that the real world emerges from the previous real world every moment whenever there are new events. This sounds more realistic theory to me.

My post was just my quick interpretation from your quotes. But maybe there are more involved. Later, I will have a read the link in peace and quiet, and get back to you, what I think of it.

A replica of the world with some differences. Not a change to the world but an actually different world. — Wayfarer

It is just a matter of the criteria - how large or small the readings, how rigorous or loose the perception of the changes, and also what instruments to measure the changes of the world they are using, but it is the case that no can dispute. I know it can sound mad, but that is scientific theories for you sometimes :D

A good point on the nature of faith. It is definitely more assuring to have faiths grounded on some level of certainty, even if faith is a type of belief.

Wouldn't it mean that whatever happens in the real world, it creates a new real world from the previous state of the real world? Logically I feel it sounds ok to me. For instance, if there were a volcano explosion somewhere in the south pacific islands, then that event will definitely affect the earth's atmosphere someway. The world then will not be the same as before the event, as if nothing had happened, although depending on how large and destructive the explosion was, it may cause either just some changes on the CO2 readings and rainfall and air pollution states, or indeed it might have caused catastrophic results on the human lives killing thousands deforming the shape of the land, and destroying the towns and villages.

But one thing clear is that the world after the event will be, in the actuality a different world, prior to that event. So in the strict sense, a new world is being created every second whenever there is an event or events somewhere in the world no matter how insignificant it was, but still remains as the real world although we may not notice it.

Even with some totally different and trivial insignificant examples such as, if I moved all the books on the floor to my new bookshelves, that event has created a new world for me. Because now, all my books are facing me from the wall, rather than scattered all over on the room floor.

It sounds a fine theory to me. :D

Frustrated by humanity, God committed suicide. :sad: Who can blame him? — Pop

If he is an omnipotent being, he can revive himself instantly. :)

Personally thinking and writing on these topics teach me about basics on Epistemic and Metaphysical logics.

How does that "logical sense" relate to anything I might experience?
We get to see what power does in our lives.What does imagining having an "infinite" amount of the stuff relate to our circumstances? — Valentinus

Of course, you cannot experience Omnipotence. No one can.
It is an abstract concept, used by the debaters.

Hmmn, the creator with a death wish.
Creatures are not necessarily on board. — Valentinus

We are talking here about the scope of power - omnipotence, what it can do or cannot do in logical sense.

yeah, I suppose if you bring in some other religious God concept, and if the premise is based on that, then the whole argument could become valid, even if the conclusion could be false.

Sorry, maybe not. Pandeism sounded like some Shamanism religion in Asian countries. I heard that they believe every object has souls and spirits ...etc. Actually I am not familiar with any religion or theism at all. :D

It is just a logical argument, not spilling into religion. :)

The presenter made clear that it is not the rhetoric or religious God he is talking about.  He is talking about the concept of God in philosophy, and its relation to how the universe works.  How they could have been related to each other, or not related at all etc from Philosophy of Cosmology point of view.  

So words like "dragon" and "ghost" have 'wrong' definitions? — Michael

No idea on dragons or ghosts. I personally have never thought about logical definitions of either of them. They are subject to debates and logical investigations, I think, if someone comes up with some logical arguments concerning them.

Every word is invented by imagination. So what about the word "omnipotence" makes its definition wrong — Michael

Hmm... I am not sure, if every word is invented from imagination. Some words are invented out of the concrete objects, but some are invented out of indeed pure imagination? Omnipotence is the latter case.

When one picks up words which has no matching real world object, give that meaning to yet another abstract concepts, and then invent some, what look like logical arguments, engage in the debates with others, and the result is confusion. :)

I don't know what you mean by the definition of "omnipotence" being wrong. — Michael

The definition of omnipotence is wrong because that is just a word invented by imagination.
But in the real world, there is no such a being with that power.

Whether you want the term "omnipotence" to include being able to kill oneself or to include being unkillable (even by oneself) or to contradictorily include both is irrelevant. — Michael

That was what I was saying above.

Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist? — Corvus

If a being is omnipotent, he can live forever. If he cannot live forever, then he is not omnipotent.
If he kills himself, he stops being omnipotent, so it is impossible thing to do. Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist?

Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he can reincarnate himself too. What would be the point of killing himself, when he can reincarnate?

iow It is not possible to know, if non existence is definitely better than existence.

The best thing for all men and women is not to be born; however, the next best thing... is, after being born, to die as quickly as possible. — Silenus

It is pointless to die as quickly as possible, if you had to reborn. If rebirth was some religious illusion, it would be still a terrible thing to happen for the deceased, because the state of the eternal non existence would be too uncertain, boring and intolerable.

If one lives till old age, then the one is lucky.
Many perishes long before reaching old age.

Again, this can be also an linguistic issue also.
In English, Science means those subjects which use hypotheses, tests, observations, experiments and then establish theories such as physics, chemistry and biology.

But in German, Science = Wissenschaft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaft
means any subject such as art, literature, social science, philosophy .... etc that can be studied and learned.

Wissenschaft
/ˈvɪs(ə)nʃaft/
=
the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship (especially as contrasted with its application).

all Buddhists believe that desire is the source of suffering. — TiredThinker

Buddhists seem believe, there are 4 different sources of suffering.
1. Existence
2. Desire
3. Ending
4. Path

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

I don't agree those are necessarily suffering. It is just matter of opinion.
Existence is absurd.
Existence without desire is meaningless.
Ending happens regardless wanting or not wanting to end.
If life is a journey, then path is needed.

It's not undeniable though, that's the point. I could be a figment of your imagination for all you know. From your perspective, I'm just someone passing by in a crowd unnoticed, and the wild thing is, you're the same to me - a passer by in my movie, of which I'm the star. — counterpunch

If you are doubting about Existence, I think you are practicing Metaphysics.

That so, nonetheless, it seems that like me, other people are able to establish valid knowledge of reality with a rationale, and logic independent of both our subjectively conceived and centred experiences. That shared valid understanding of reality is logically prior to our individual experience. It's the difference between statistics and anecdotes. — counterpunch

Objectivism is just multiple agreed subjectivism.

Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It has plenty of critics but as a popular intro it is quite good. The way he weaves the narrative historical thread between individuals and periods of history is very good in my opinion, as it opens up the perspective of the 'history of ideas', which is technically a different subject to philosophy but very much linked with it. — Wayfarer

That book will take many days to finish, if not many weeks. It is almost similar amount of pages as the Bible. Still a great book.

"What does it all mean? - a very short introduction to philosophy" by Thomas Nagel, OXFORD — Corvus

Anyone can read this book in an hour or two. Yet, it covers most main topics in philosophy. After that, move on to the next books.

It matters that I try to exist; and that's why I wrote the post. — counterpunch

There is an undeniable evidence that you exist.

Did I answer your question? I'm not quite sure I understood it. — counterpunch

Sure. You proved subjectivism is not always sophistry.

This then sets a premium on the subjects knowledge of objective reality, over even, knowledge of self revealed via contemplations upon the nature of being. — counterpunch

But if you didn't exist, how would it matter to you? How could you have known it, or even written that post?

Which is the very point that is left out most of the time. — Wayfarer

:fire: :fire:

For me, philosophy begins with epistemology. Subjectivism and metaphysics are sophistry, not philosophy. — counterpunch

I feel that they are all important part of Philosophy. Epistemology without metaphysics would be meaningless. Objectivism doesn't exist without subjects.

I used to think pattern was for images and forms, not for the words or meanings.

Do all emotions have their causes? Perhaps some don't? Such as feeling "nothing". Chould such feelings be regarded as emotions? Are some emotions are more inherent than the others, and some are caused and invoked?

If we know about the causes, nature, and more accurate definitions of emotions, perhaps, we could understand emotions better, and answers to the OP could emerge naturally?

In Hume's case, I wonder if he was forced to admit that the idea of Self does not exist, because in his system of perception, every perception comes from the external world via impressions and ideas. But the self? It would be illogical to say the perception of self is coming from outside the external world into one's sensory organs.

The idea of self must come from somewhere inside of one's body, if it had to be the idea of self. So it was either admitting the self is in one's mind, or the mind itself, which will demolish his empirical system of human nature, or say "self doesn't exist." He must have opted for the latter.

I feel that there are some topics in psychology that science cannot handle such as the problem of self or subconsciousness or explanation on the premonitions and etc. They are studied and explained in the mystic approaches like from Freud and Jung's.

But there are definitely topics that can be and must be tackled in scientific methods such as diagnosing depression anxiety problems. For these problems, they carry out lots of scientific experiments and tests on the mass of people with the suspected symptoms. They have the clearly and fully established theories to the causes, symptoms and also possible treatments for the problems. In that regard, it is a fully established science.

Psychology is a wide area with the large number of different topics, branches of disciplines and schools. Some are classic mysticism forms, and some are fully scientific. A diverse and flexible subject.