Expert in Constitutional Law at Harvard will be reading the argument and viewing the Poll results contained in this link.

Need as many people to vote in the Poll as possible. Will be greatly appreciated! Gratitude to anyone that takes the time. :)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3

Maybe just one trait; they do all share a locus, that is to say an anchor point based in physical reality. A Rock has its true physical existence outside the word but I’m not opposed to thinking of words as objects themselves so long as they are in books, written down, typed and stored, spoken and thought they have a physical location.

I might call this Living Knowledge, in that it has the potential to die. The rock itself can keep existing but the idea that it is called a rock can always die. However I’m not adding that as a goalpost to defining perfect knowledge. In the long term, as far as we think from what we are observing of the universe; nothing is permanent. So I think it is fair to say that if there exists such a thing as Perfect anything, permanence cannot be a requirement for it to be perfect.

Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.

Indeed. I feel it also ignores the variables of states we do know about. These sorts of arguments are nearly always made in relation to the physics of earth as opposed to physics of the universe or other planets. We are starting to realise that biological life can exist in many different places and they believe Tardigrades can potentially survive in space. Even if we hypothesise a universe where there was more anti-matter than matter at the beginning of the universe (if it was the beginning anyway) we still have no way of knowing what the different properties anti-matter may have had to matter. Even the name anti-matter is misleading, it’s based on the one characteristic that we could know about it. That it cancelled out matter. However by this definition, a universe formed of what we call “antimatter” would hypothesise that our universe was also made of “antimatter”; If there is nothing so different between the two, that a universe comprised of either could produce its own forms of intelligent biological life.

goalposts have been exactly in the same place the whole time. You just haven’t reached them. Artemis is getting closer than you at least. I don’t know what you want me to say really but you haven’t convinced me and that’s as honest as I can be right now :/

My intellectual honesty is debating with you. Do you want me to lie to you and tell you that you’ve convinced me? You haven’t.

I get it. Obviously I’m acknowledging that I and everyone else acts as if A priori knowledge exists because we wouldn’t be able to live our lives otherwise.

I just have a very high bar for truth and certainty. To me, saying All Triangles have three sides is true to the definition of pragmatic truth.

Objective truth? Not so sure. The existence of a triangle is an argument that triangles have three sides.

If we agree that the existence of what we call a triangle itself is perfect knowledge but not what we call that existence, I’ll concede the point.

It’s an interesting conversation though :)

Careful, now you’re moving towards the etymology of those words and it only gets trickier from there. Nothing about Tri inherently implies three and nothing about angle inherently implies joined lines creating angles. Only your relational memory through repeated use of the word does.

Me and you could agree to create a priori knowledge just between us. If we agreed to start calling Bannanas, chomchoms. A triangle has three sides isn’t irrefutable or indisputable. What something is called and what a thing is, are different.

Also the Japanese script said the same as the other two scripts.

As for all Bachelors are unmarried, that is a self negating statement. Bachelors already means unmarried. Besides my issue with language, the phrase you’d argue to be true without self negating is “Unmarried men are called bachelors in English... Oh! Unless we define language as A Priori? to that though, I’d say just because I teach a man to say pillow in English, isn’t going to tell him what a pillow is if he’s never seen one.

Ein Dreieck hat drei Seiten.
A Triangle has three sides.
三角形には3つの辺があります

If it can’t be universally true in this world, why would it be true of others?

That’s because of logic, not knowledge. It’s still not considered perfect knowledge since anyone can change the rules of a game and make a new one. Then you have the words themselves to look at and the fact that all words are entirely made up.

Cohens preface to logic goes into this a bit. It’s a really good read.

What can I say. Perfection is absurd to me. I’d even argue over whether a triangle is a triangle haha. I mean, to a human it is. Can’t speak to it’s hidden dimensions though.

I guess fundamentally I just don’t view us as capable of being completely honest with ourselves that we 100% know anything for sure.

If we are talking about perfect human knowledge, things that are true at least of the human experience. Fully believe in that. Maybe I just think it’s pretty egoic to assume any one person or even any one species could have 100% certainty in anything. It’s so absurd that even my argument shouldn’t even be taken as 100% certainty that I’m right about this hahaha

Okay for real though. I think I need to take a break for a few days, I’ve been manically obsessing about my debates here a little too much and my own ego needs a good self roast for the next few days to deflate before I start accumulating what I’ve got so far. These have all been extremely stimulating conversations with everyone here the past little while but I’m approaching burn out.

Goodnight Sushi :)

it’s not that simple. Perfect knowledge; meaning something we can know to be true without any doubt, includes a definition of perfect knowledge. If we don’t know if perfect knowledge exists. How can the definition itself be thought of as an example of perfect knowledge?
If there is no perfect knowledge then the definition for perfect knowledge isn’t perfect knowledge.
if I believe perfect knowledge would also be irrefutable and unassailable and I know that the definition can’t logically exist without pre understanding the nature of perfect knowledge, then how can I trust my own definition or criteria for perfect knowledge when they are not irrefutable and unassailable?

I’m genuinely open to an argument that will change my mind here.

stop trying to do mental gymnastics to save free-will, and just throw it out.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame, not responsibility, because responsibility is still within causation.

any and all starting points are illusions caused by ignorance of previous causes. including free-will and creationism.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop

- yup! Agree with this.

Why do you believe existence is an eternal loop? :) genuinely curious. Always like to hear why people reached similar conclusions to myself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-lie-detectors/

May have butchered it a bit and couldn’t find the article I read, think it was a science opinion piece now that I think about it so it was probably not right in some way.

Anyway, have a read of this. Few ideas going on.

Well they think they may be able to detect lying using heat sensing technology to read blood flow to certain facial muscles that are allegedly associated with lying.

It was developed as part of a study of identifying when a child was lying based upon roles. So Drs, Teachers, psychologists, parents and some other demographics I might be forgetting, where shown footage of children during an experiment and they had to provide their answer for whether they thought the children was lying or not. Most people scored poorly and the ones that scored highest were parents at around 6?%of the time they’d guess accurately truth or lie.

It’s actually a lot harder to tell when children are lying due to their facial muscles not being fully developed. However, with sensitive heat sensing equipment it did show that children still have blood flow to muscles associated with micro expressions even if those muscles aren’t moving in a discernible way to an adult.

Need to go find that study again it was really interesting. Will be back!

yeah, in red dwarf it was called the justice zone but I added Karma there because it’s justice theory through karma as the method of justice.

The question; is it possible to create Red dwarfs Justice zone, In a virtual reality?

in Red dwarf, it was a real reality. For our purposes, I think a virtual reality is more practical than building a computer that can enforce Karma across any area of space, probably defying laws of physics, let alone many prisons. Haha

“without imagining that the electrons are slipping into other dimensions.” Sorry, correcting myself; unless they can be interpreted as a wavelength/field. Those are the options as far as I’m aware but I’m a few years out of date

So you are aware that the multiple universes interpretation lacks any testable outcomes.

Yes, however this is due to the difficulty in determining and interpreting test outcomes due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately those pesky electrons keep superpositioning themselves/teleporting themselves around the atoms at every point until we look and we can’t really figure out the behaviour without imagining that the electrons are slipping into other dimensions. (Dimensions not parallel universes, that to me is nonsense).

A better ancestor to the simulation hypothesis is Descartes's daemon.

- @“banno”

Hahaha! Have to agree with you there. Little arsehole/arseholes are probably contributing to global warming in there own stupid reality leaving the computer on for so long... saying that though it could have only been five minutes there, I dunno.

Millenarianism sounds really interesting to me though! Thanks for mentioning that I didn’t know about it before. :)

Yes I have. Kind of a requirement before going into philosophy of quantum mechanics or hard quantum mechanics..

It's bad philosophy drawn from pop culture.

Except pop culture got it from plausible interpretations of the multiverse theory backed up by evidence from experiments in physics and quantum mechanics. Pop culture gets all its inspiration from culture up to and including the culture of science itself. They don’t call it science fiction for nothing. However this one, Simulation theory is still plausible as per the evidence and it is yet to be known if it is pure fiction or not.

Have you read Quantum philosophy by Roland Omnes or any of the works of Michael Lockwood?

Experiments; include double slit and quantum eraser variants of these.

End times for what? Humans or life?

Pointless to you is not pointless to me, it being pointless to you doesn’t stop it from being intriguing, as I am intrigued. Knowledge of something like this serves the purpose that it is probably true or simulation theory is untrue in which case it informs people not to worry about it either way. Which isn’t the same as it being pointless.

I think you are correct to observe that if we base our simulations on our natural world, it stands to reason that if our world is also a simulation then our physics must be inspired by the universe which is simulating ours.

However we don’t know if it goes back into infinite or if it still originates from a true natural world.

It’s extremely intriguing to think about though right? The potential for infinite and finite are both there!

If only it were that Binary and dualistic things would maybe be simpler haha.

To describe what goes on within, look outward. A political landscape adrift in a sea of unknowns. So it is outward, so it is within. The self is a raging war deep within, with many internal and external agents.

Rewrote the OP with your constructive criticism included and addressed it. :) Thoughts?

Done. Was late when I first wrote it. Sorry. :)

If you take away the earth centrism and anthropocentrism then you’re on the right track. The god is just awareness of the universe though shared by all life. It has the potential to be omnipresent and all knowing. You might say, the purpose of life in general is to increase awareness of the universe. Awareness of the universe is god and only crimes against the future of the awareness of life to know itself as a universe, are immoral.

certainly, sorry it can be said much clearer.

Do video games have the potential to becoming an acceptable enough outlet for maladaptive behaviours? So if they are of a successful quality of emulating more realism and injecting more stimulation to our senses that even the most sadistic and prolific killer prefers that to the real thing?

Could they also form an ethical life and consented sentence for criminals incapable of not committing crimes in the real world by just getting them to agree to go to a place where they can do whatever they want for the rest of their life, free of real consequences?

“The primary premiss is false. All perfect answers are true. Some true answers are assailed. Thus, it cannot be the case that if one is assailed, then one is wrong.”

Again the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of perfect knowledge or a perfect person.

If premise 1 is false then give an example of something which is perfect knowledge?

Drop the monologic narcissistic bs too because you’re embarrassing yourself now. It’s actually kind of funny watching you think you’ve effectively challenged anything when you are too lazy to even respond properly or write an argument that makes sense.

See you actually believe you’ve countered my argument but all you’ve done is create you own argument where YOU claim that perfect knowledge is possible without a perfect being and are then trying to say it is my argument. Prove your claims or be quiet but don’t try and tell me what my argument is. This is what you sound like. “Oh well your argument is completely wrong if I change it. Derrrppp”

Prove perfect knowledge exists :)

P.S. you’re not perfect and never will be, get over it... I did.

Broad Optimism" in the sense that a solution is possible, the negation of narrow pessimism.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.

These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.

It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.

@Pfhorrest

Some posited terms to use.

Yeah, sure.

If you’re not able to understand the argument you don’t have to respond to it. My argument is and has always been against the existence of a perfect being and the burden of proof is on you to provide a convincing argument for a perfect being.

...is being right the same as being perfect?
— Mark Dennis

Of course not. One can be right about something and wrong about other things. However, perfect knowledge would be had by a perfect person. Perfect knowledge is right. So, if one can be right and assailed, then it is not true that if one is being assailed one is not right(perfect).

So far this has been your only argument. In which you deny that being right is the same as being perfect, which is what I think. Then immediately flip by the end of the paragraph and all of a sudden claim in parenthesis that “Right” does in fact mean “perfect”. This doesn’t prove the existence of a perfect person nor the existence of perfect knowledge either.

So did you change your mind? Or is your next argument for a perfect being going to be a picture of yourself? :)

The universe appears to be “fine-tuned”: the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it.
2. Thus, the universe as we understand it is an extremely unlikely event/series of events.
3. Any such extremely unlikely event/series of events is best explained not by natural processes—such as natural selection for explaining the presence of diverse life forms—but by intelligent design.
4. Given these two possibilities for explanation, intelligent design is the best explanation for the creation and nature of the universe. (3, 4 DS)

Agree with your assessment of the first premise. Assumes the answer, it also assumes we are at an end point in our understanding of our universe or even what universes with the slight variations of physical constraints would look like either.

I feel that when people say “intelligent design” they are referring more to an intent to produce aesthetically pleasing mathematical symmetry from a wilful or conscious deity. There also seems to be an assumption that the aesthetic values existed before the things the values were based on did.

We don’t build buildings. We make aesthetically pleasing and sculpted tree houses and mountains. We didn’t even used to do that, we valued the safety and functionality of our architecture and as it improved so did our appreciation for it. Nature is intelligent only in that it taught us to be intelligent in Nature.

For me, this doesn’t discount the possibility of a god. However it discounts the possibility of a god of creation. An entity that preceded the universe and intelligently based it off what?

Even if say we examine intelligent design through simulation theory it still doesn’t hold up. We can learn this through our own creation of computer simulations. We use them to emulate reality. No video game or simulation can show you anything that that doesn’t contain aspects of reality no matter how seemingly abstract. This tells us a few things about the outside universe our hypothetical simulation take place in. It’s similar to our own reality, it is the inspiration for what we call the natural laws of our universe. So it must have natural laws, therefore we would still just be a simulated universe inside a natural one with which intelligence itself is inspired by.

No sense at all. Because objectively perfect beings don’t exist. Unless objective perfection is to simply be a being in which case nature is perfect.

Denial really can be scary. I wonder if there is any reading out here in the area of phenomenology of emotions. I remember looking for one for logic at one point and could not find any. Extremely disappointing. You can have a phenomenology on ghosts in literature but no one has done anything on logic as far as I can tell.

Oops

Yeah unfortunately our feelings tend to have a habit of defying rationality. Fortunately though, rationality can be used to study the logical human root of our anxiety.

For example; when I was younger my anger and anxiety management skills were awful. Looking for a rational reason to explain why we are this way tends to end up just leading us down paths of blame for the external world. “If only the world wouldn’t be so terrible, then I could let go of my anger and my anxiety”.

However, a lot of us don’t realise that when we have episodic and regular bouts of anxiety or anger they are actually remnants of strong powerful emotions felt during early childhood and what is causing the bulk of your anxiety and anger (generalised you, I know you have anxiety issues but not sure about anger) is actually due to your internal world.

I’ll message directly from here as I’ll share some personal history with you that I don’t really need to share here.

I didn’t get into everything that was in the video. The overall theme of the video was that Adam was admitting to some of the mistakes his show has made over the years and everyone was freaking out because he was doing this and saying he’s going to ruin their credibility and were expecting him to get mad and defensive about having his mistakes pointed out. Another claim was that getting things wrong shows he doesn’t care about the facts.

His counter was that actually admitting to your mistakes increases your credibility and shows that you care about the facts so much that you’re willing to let go of pride so the truth gets the spotlight.

He explained that while the shows research team is excellent they are all human and humans make mistakes.

It also linked me to another video explaining the backfire effect. Which is when people who are shown evidence against their claims it actually makes them cling to the claims harder. Due to the fact that for most people, being told they are wrong and especially being faced with proof (which in philosophy can be a well put, logical counter argument free of fallacies) they are wrong illicits a pain response and can put them into fight or flight. It’s how the mind tries to protect itself from what it perceives as a painful truth.

Of course, In philosophy just because someone might have made you feel this pain response doesn’t mean they are right or wrong, it just means to you they have made a convincing case.

Thank you for sticking around. I might message you directly for conversations every now and then if that is okay? :)

that’s fair enough. Did you watch this video that came with this post? I’ve been wondering if anyone has. I think it’s fascinating.