“That is true - causality is just an axiom - derived from empirically observed behaviour.

- The micro world may truly never be fully understood (due to its micro nature), so we might never get an answer to the OP question.

- Performing an experiment that demonstrates causality holds universally is obviously not possible.

- The performing of an experiment that rules out causality holding universally? I am not sure that is possible either. There is always a get out of saying some non-local cause is responsible for the supposed causeless effect (or appealing to a hidden underlying deterministic reality)

- Retrocausality does not count as causeless effects IMO. But there are possible instances of it like the famous quantum eraser”

I’ve changed my mind about you. While I still stand by my comments made to yourself during our previous engagement just in relation to the fallacious argument in that particular instance (let it be said I was never disagreeing or agreeing with you just pointing out the flaws in your argument before.) I also observe that some of your other arguments are a lot stronger and more reasoned out and I commend anyone these days who makes an effort to quantum accommodate their application of philosophy.

I completely agree that retrocausality is not the same as saying effects/events have no cause, however it does throw a wrench into being able to accurately predetermine anything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality someone beat us to it haha. This is good though, means our thinking is seen as justifiable to philosophers in the past. Michael Dummett is someone else to read however Flew and Blacks rebuttals will be worth looking at also.

“
If it should be that there are causeless effects, or 'reverse causality', it would be too easy to unconsciously deny such a thing by pretending that causality remains valid because we continue to use the same term. Perhaps I was focussing too closely on this aim?” In case it wasn’t clear by my previous message I do think this is a good observation and I was agreeing with it. I am merely stating that if it happened in the past then it is still a cause.

I think new terminology would be best to described this reverse causality perspective and I feel you are right that causality shouldn’t be used in the term. I’ve already made up a few terms in phenomenology, usually so long as you stick to something Latin/Greek/Germanic in origin and it makes some logical sense why you used that word when you explain the definition. For example: Geopiphone is the feeling of awe and smallness one gets when realising they are a long way from their place of birth and are travelling or living somewhere else yet are aware that they could still be home within two days. (So this is a relatively new experience for humans only made possible by affordable flight.)

Another example: Quantum Accomodarre, Which is the practice of re-evaluating key problems in philosophy coupled with a working understanding of QM and is the key concept of Quantum Philosophy (See Roland Omnés and Michael Lockwood).

So, back in a moment I have to do some quick research on something.

“Or it may have meant something totally different. My bet is that Heidegsteinbergerbaumfeld would say, if he were alive today that "philo sophia" ultimately and most profoundly meant, to the ancient Greeks in today's English vernacular, "whatever.”

“H., who is obviously a make-belief figure with a make-belief name, suggesting it's a joke what followed, but a joke with a serious and thought-out content, that philosophia means "whatever'.”

Making up a philosopher who agrees with your claim that philosophy can mean “Whatever” is a lie, it was not obvious it was a joke at all. So saying you lied when you admitted it wasn’t real isn’t untrue of me to say is it?

“It may also equally mean (since philosophy is free from the gags and binds of science), philosophically speaking, "whatever."” Here we have another statement where you try and claim philosophy can just mean “whatever” and philosophy isn’t free from the gags and binds of science either because we still have to pay attention to the facts that science reveals. It’s like how philosophy of language is the conceptual study of language but it still has to pay attention to the empirical branches of language like linguistics or semiotics and the facts they reveal.

I’m not trying to upset you or embarrass you I’m just being direct and honest in my engagement with you. Stop taking these things personally.

“You shouldn’t take my criticisms personally
— Mark Dennis

This is a ridiculous demand.” It’s not a demand it’s a recommendation and a good one. Not my fault this is how philosophy is done. If you can’t take it then maybe you shouldn’t have replied in the first place. I didn’t mean to upset you but I don’t really know what you expect when some calls out what you say as untrue and misleading.

I don’t see myself as superior, I just know what I’m talking about and only speak what I know to be true. And yeah you did lie you admitted to it.

If you have no other way to counter my arguments but with ad hom and fake offense at calling you out for spouting nonsense then that isn’t really my problem.

Seriously if you get this upset at being corrected then philosophy isn’t for you quite frankly.

“So this is what I meant, via quoting H., who is obviously a make-belief figure with a make-belief name, suggesting it's a joke what followed, but a joke with a serious and thought-out content, that philosophia means "whatever'.” This is why I’m not taking you seriously. Because you are making things up. It’s not a joke it’s just lying and it’s misleading. It’s also irrelevant because I wasn’t coming down on you for “Arsenokoitei” I said Coitea isn’t a real word.

“This I based on other contributor's posts such as of Ocean777 who claims to have seen god, and of Devans99, who denies the fact of infinity, has a "proof" of existence of god, and has a "proof" (a priori,logical proofs both) that the universe began to exist at one point, before which point it did not exist. I based my "whatever" on contributions that insist that the BB was an unnatural phenomenon. Ocean777, Devans99 and others call themselves philosophers, and they take themselves seriously, and some others take them seriously enough to start to argue against their points.”

This is kind of the pot calling the kettle black and it isn’t even correct. Devans99 is obsessed sure and he isn’t very competent at forming arguments and he lacks an understanding of utilising logic in arguments but he does have an interesting perspective at times and if he could do some more concentrated study he could do very well. He’s kind of like a young Socrates, which is just a way of saying he’s a smart idiot who will one day wake up and realise he knows nothing, on that day he will be a philosopher. You on the other hand make a point of being unclear sometimes and you try and correct (which is fine) except your corrections are usually wrong and waste time needing to be corrected themselves. Also, it’s very easy to deny infinite because it isn’t a known fact. Not in the sense that we can say truthfully “We know infinite exists”. Ocean777 is pretty nutty though, nothing positive to say there.

“Koitei means "Fuckers". In Greek. I derived "coitea" from it. So i burn in hell?” What? No! You shouldn’t take my criticisms personally they are meant to be constructive. Also while it is admirable to try and figure out what words might mean based on our knowledge of known words, you’re forgetting grammar. It’s not English grammar it’s Ancient Greek. Koitei can also mean Cave (en koitei tes ges) “in a hollow of the earth.”

If you are surprised at my tone then I suggest you not use pejorative terms in relation to philosophy and the point is to be clear and understandable. Not purposefully misleading.

You also need to be aware of teaching methodologies within philosophy itself. You’re only getting the same critique others have to pay to go to college for and the point of it is to help you improve. I’m not one of those who will mollycoddle anyone.

“Presumably, proponents of the hard problem became convinced there was a gap because of arguments in favor of a gap, so they could become unconvinced. That's how it should work. We should change our views when good arguments/evidence become available.”

I definitely agree with this. This is the essence of pragmatism really and pragmatism seems to be the dominant philosophy within science itself.

“So the brain combines prior expectations of what's likely to be out there in the body and world with sensory data to come up with its best guess as to what's out there, which is a form of bayesian inference. He claims there is emerging evidence the brain is doing something like this.”

An altogether terrifying prospect. This seems to imply that the real universe is different to the one that exists inside our heads. It would begin to explain why a group of people can perceive the same event and perceive and remember it quite differently. For me this really highlights the importance of the collaborative approach to understanding reality.

“My impression has always been that the folks who stress that there's an "explanatory gap" would feel that way no matter what explanation is forwarded, especially because they'll give no clear criteria for what fhey require of explanations.”

I wouldn’t be overly concerned with these critics. Seeing as how philosophy is a long term collaboration: the real test of any argument or explanation comes from repeated critique over multiple generations. If the explanation or argument has value somebody will point it out eventually. There might even be an explanation to be made about what we infer from our expectations of reality, based on a critics expectation of this explanation to be unsatisfactory.

“I think fuck would be coitea, not Pornea, but that's good too in my books." Can you please cite where you are getting this information from please? Coitea isn’t a word in Greek. Are you thinking of the Latin Coitus? Pornea literally means to fornicate.

“My bet is that Heidegsteinbergerbaumfeld would say, if he were alive today that "philo sophia" ultimately and most profoundly meant, to the ancient Greeks in today's English vernacular, "whatever."”

Well he’d just be completely wrong about that and I think that is a very silly thing to suggest. Why do you think this?

At this point I don’t really care if it is good in your books as you’re not really keeping up and now you’ve shared two outlandish and completely wrong statements.

If you’re going to correct someone at least do a bit of background research and make sure you’re not just spouting nonsense. I didn’t waste my time to learn this stuff only to be corrected on a forum about known words in Ancient Greek or be corrected on what is practically entry level philosophy. What is philosophy is literally part of the curriculum at the start of most courses and it is not really up for debate that Philos means Love and Sophia means Wisdom. Philosophia does not and has never meant “Fuck wisdom” and to even suggest that is what the ancient Greeks like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates etc were saying is the height of ignorance. If I saw that in a book I’d buy it and put it on the shelf next to Plato and Freud were they may all be companions in their ignorance!

Actually, I used Caused correctly there as I was referring to the past contributing factors of the inventor such as childhood, interest in music, formative experiences that preceded the idea event of the piano which is the part you have the problem with saying is cause in the general term as it deals with a future.

Coming up with terms in philosophy is pretty fair game and one thing you’ll find is that some of the concepts we already know are interpreted differently by different philosophers. For example: Kants definition of The Sublime is much different than the understanding of the word we likely both grew up with. Kants Sublime is a phenomenological observation of the feeling one gets when watching something grand, natural and dangerous but viewed from a safe distance. So Kants Sublime is the feeling of awe and mild fear when watching a storm.

However the general definition of just sublime can be attributed to a good meal.

You should check out Epicurus and the concept of Euadaimomia

Philos means love, Eros would be love of the sexual connotation. Source of the ero in erotic. Fuck would be Pornea (guess which modern word that is linked to!) for Fornicate. Pornea Sophia would be fuck knowledge.

You're probably right. I also don't want to reach the conclusion that events can only have one cause instead of myriad contributing factors. Let me try and think up some preliminary appropriate wording... So maybe the correct thing to say is that the piano was caused by life of inventor/inventor themselves with a future abstraction contributive factor?

I'm not sure yet, this has been something that has been playing around in my head. Just an observation that Events can be the cause of themselves when they are formed by abstractions about the future. If I imagine a future with a never before seen instrument, and then I make that instrument then what caused the instrument?

Well I mean, it should still be called causality because the instrument still has a cause. However some of the properties of the instrument and the details can only come from abstractions about the future. While they can be predicted to be anything within certain probabilities "The instrument will be made from materials found on earth" they cannot be predicted exactly.

Some aspects of the instrument will still be caused by the past, for example the person has a past which makes them predisposed to inventing instruments and being interested in music, they also know of instruments invented in the past which enables them to know what it is in the first place.

So I guess the best way to phrase this question, can Events be the Cause of themselves? Was the Piano creation event determined by an imaginary view of itself in the future?

So as much as I wanted there to be a credible argument against determinism I dont think this is it, just that the concept is perhaps softer than people think. However if you think this means causality doesnt work in this case at all feel free to expand on that line of thinking and justify it for us.

This was very well said! Rest assured I have no issues with homosexuality.

How would you respond to the justifiable intolerance of dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like? Or my biological intolerance of things that may make me ill?

For me, being open to communication with racists just provides a platform for their ideology to reach others and it is a risky thing to engage in.

I do however agree with the notion that institutions are largely to blame. However doesn’t that mean our intolerance should be directed towards those institutions?

In what world do they not have anything to do with ethics? If we are asking whether or not there is a right or wrong statement to be made by either discrimination and by extension racism then are we not talking about ethics?

Justice, right and wrong, value, all are parts of ethics and I should know, I specialised in Ethics and I work in ethics!

Also "Vaginized?" I've never heard this term before and can't find how it relates to philosophy or ethics, just an entry in the urban dictionary. "A male that is just a pussy, and his little bitty balls are found in his wife's purse"

If I ask the simple question, Is it good to be prejudiced? Then I have just entered into the realm of ethics. Whenever we are studying our values, we are studying our ethics as Ethics is largely the study of value theory.

Don't even get me started on Metaethics!

A

Fuck, how did I mix those two up!? I'm a fucking gnostic and I forgot Sophia hahaha

Now I know how my Highschool chemistry teacher at school felt when I corrected him on mixing up the charges of neutron and electrons (still sure he did this on purpose to see if anyone would correct him).

"Although philosophy is today primarily an academic study that was not always the case, but if you hope to get paid then teaching is the standard route." - This has always been my pet peeve about philosophy, that it's a highly competitive field with very few jobs available. However the methodologies one learns in philosophy come in very useful in a lot of other fields. I have a logician friend who after trying to get a teaching job and failing for so long, (Apparently he didn't go to the right university.) switched to studying mathematics.

Philosophy comes from the greek word Philosophia, Philos meaning Knowledge and Sophia meaning love, so love of knowledge. That's the original etymology of the word. However it should be noted that this study was first embarked upon in northern africa in egypt, it's merely the name that comes from greece. However the foundation to modern philosophy finds most of its roots in classical greek and roman philosophy.

Philosophy can be understood as the academic study of everything, or all knowledge at the least.

As for the weeds that philosophy is supposed to pull, well it depends on the branch of philosophy. Ethics is meant to weed out wrongness and replace it with the good. Without ethics, society as we know it would not exist.

"IMO, the best philosophy tries to break new ground. That isn't easy, but that's no reason not to try, is it?"

Couldn't agree more. As for QM, it is debated as to whether it is truly probabilistic or just seems to be that way. Is it our observation that determines the state/vector of a particle with wave/particle duality or does our observation merely observe the state/vector it was always on.

If it is the former, then I would say that all effects still have causes, however some effects can locate their causes as being in front of them in time. It's not as simple as a past cause creates a future effect.

Here is an example of what I mean, what caused the piano to be invented? The effect is the piano being invented, the cause came from the conceptualisation of a future with Pianos. The issue I have with determinism is that it implies with enough time an astute and intelligent person could have predicted the invention of the piano, while I believe the piano itself was predictable, the details, composition, first note played, first song played and first song made would never be predictable.

As for why I say this, because of the quantum theory of mind. If everything supervenes QM, and the quantum theory of mind is correct then this might be a direct contest to the idea that all mental properties supervenes physical properties. Whether or not this means that what we think of as mental properties aren't really mental but also physical I don't know. It does raise some interesting questions about quantum accomodation within philosophy. Will Philosophers fall behind if they keep dismissing all QM arguments as woo? Or should it be the duty of philosophers to gain an understanding of QM in order to reduce the amount of woo? Quantum accomodare friends. It's a thing.

I don't know if my thinkings on this are a bunch of woo, however the danger posed to philosophy by Quantum accomodated arguments cannot be overlooked, as how do you determine if a QM theory is woo without attempting to develop a working understanding of QM? Without a working understanding of QM how could you ever know if a Qauntum accomodated philosophy is true in either the traditional or pragmatic sense?

Is this that non Euclidean geometry? I’ve so far only read about this in reference but don’t quite understand it.

However, It would be a rather strange universe if it stops being flat outside of the observable universe. Unless you’re suggesting that it only appears to be Euclidean due to our observing of state/vectors?

I’m a pragmatist so I have a hard time really engaging with ideas until I know what purpose they serve to us now.

I wouldn't even waste your time with him anymore. I contacted the moderators and they are aware of this guys behaviour and will be watching him. They already removed his insulting question to me earlier. They also observe that both accounts are from different locations so they say unless some advanced tech trickery is going on then it probably isnt the same person. Although the dialogue between both accounts is still suspicious and he's pretty manipulative so maybe he's pinging to a different server between accounts but can't really be proven by us. I mean, the guy is literally imagining things not moving through time unless his magic cursor is on it so he seems to be under the impression he is an observing god making everything work with his presence and then giving himself special privileges over other humans when he infers that humans cant understand his logic yet. It's a rigged debate. Hes not here to learn, he's here for narcisstic supply not realising that its generally accepted in philosophy that there is no such thing as a perfect or infallible argument and it is all open to critique.

Oh piss off. You insult me by asking if I have antisocial personality disorder then you wish me luck with my conditions like you understand a thing about them and as if they change your arguments from being trash. They don't and you're a fucking asshole for bringing that shit up at all.

Your model is idiotic and serves only to get the conclusion you want. So it isn't philosophy and you have an absolute cheek to speak about what is logical when you don't even understand logic. You ignore advice and there is a clear thread of you just moving on from being told you aren't making sense to you making even less sense when you try and explain what you mean.

Also the whole alter ego thing, that's called engaging in bad faith. You shouldn't need to create a new account to provide backup for yourself if your arguments were any good. But they aren't, they are just confusing pseudo intellectual wordplay. None of us are going to give you the reaction you want, its obvious you are just wanting someone to come along and go "Wow this is amazing, how come someone never thought of this before?" But the truth is, there is nothing so profound or unbelievable that it hasn't been said by a philosopher before. I'm paraphrasing Descarte there. So trust me, no one is going to swoop in and give you this reaction and if they do then they aren't a philosopher, it's your mother.

Why do you believe that? Is it intuitive or does the belief come with an argument?

Who said anything about different sizes of infinite? Are you just trying to be provocatively edgy without a logical argument to back up the belief? Because you come off as incredibly arrogant when you do this.

Our best observations to date strongly suggest that the universe has no spatial curvature. It may be expanding in time, but the geometry of space at any given time, is Euclidean.

The simplest topology that corresponds to Euclidean geometry is that of flat, infinite space. So by Occam’s razor, we can conclude that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the universe appears infinite.

Now the desire to engage with these ideas is great, but I sincerely hope that if I'm taking the time to recommend reading to you (Like Cohens preface to logic, for the 3rd time) then you are at least going to look it up. If you aren't going to listen and are just here to waste time with edgy nonsense for the sake of placating your ego then I will no longer interact with you. Here to learn and help others learn.

Contrary to what?

I personally agree with you. I think there isn't much that can be Known about the concept of infinite so I don't like to play around with it too much. I could never know if the universe is infinite because it's too big for me to ever find out if it is true or not.

I think it does make sense to you, you just don't see the value in the concept as it's just a fantasy of pure mathematics.

The reality is that numbers as we understand them will always be finite as long as we are for each new high number that is written in sequence can consider itself discovered by we who use numbers and are counting them out. However, inbetween 0 and 1 you could also infinitely count out decimal places without ever reaching 1. Numbers are infinitely divisible. with the exception of zero.

Why would we have expected him to have counted every number? When did he start going back from? The scenario doesn't make sense. The scenario uses the existence of infinite to argue against its existence. If I have to assume that past time is infinite then there is no way to count every number because their are infinite ones. No one can count infinite, that's the point.

Hell, neither of us in our lifetime could ever write enough zeros to write a googolplex properly, 10^10^100. It's not a real fixed number sure, but it is a concept within our universe of discourse and we don't know if the universe is of a finite or infinite size. Can't know is more accurate here really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GEebx72-qs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA

Are you familiar with these concepts? Let me know what you think of the videos.

You really would enjoy the preface to logic by Cohen I think. He agrees with you that logic is not contained within the study of thinking or mathematics.

Logic inarguably has rules when it comes to argumentation. Unlike in other fields, the minimum threshold for meeting the burden of proof in philosophy is a logically consistent argument coupled with a citation of someone who is arguing for or against your conclusion.

You might also like to read David Humes essays pertaining to logic and emotion. Cohen disagrees with Humes perspective of logical but they are still required reading within formal philosophy settings. Well Hume is at least, for Cohen it depends on the individual professors really.

"Oh my argument is right because my bold claim with no evidence is also right"

"As I already mentioned, a cyclical universe still needs a start of time - something has to set the 'now' cursor of time in motion around the circle of time."
No it doesn't. Where does it say this exactly? Load of rubbish.

"I think that the start of time was the Big Bang. Matter either came into existence via the zero energy universe hypothesis or matter entered time (at the point of the Big Bang). Neither qualify as 'something from nothing'."

Then why are you using the confusing term "Universe" To mean the totality of everything. Now your argument sounds like you are saying the universe came into existence because other parts of the universe created it? Still Something from bloody nothing. Stupid.

Is it just me that feels like this guy keeps jumping between these two options? I can't make sense of him anymore as I feel half the time he is saying he hasn't arguing for the thing he was just arguing for two minutes ago. First there is a forever then forever can't be. I am getting confused here.

You're still assuming time as you understand it has a start.

Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason for itself

This argument here actually supports a cyclical universe that has been here forever, as the universe cannot be the reason for itself. See we are understanding what you are saying, the problem is you aren't making yourself understandable. I'm telling you 100% you are using a conclusion as proof of your proposition and then using it to prove your conclusion. It's logically inconsistent and fallacial.

I disagree with this notion entirely that everything has to have a reason. I think you are trying to ascribe human meaning and reason to a non human universe. Humans apply reasons to things but these same arguments for someone who first pushed a stone down a hill are so antiquated they are comical to me now.

You should read Cohens Preface to Logic. Maybe it will help you see why your argument doesn't follow logic for me.

See this is what happens when people don't frame out their thoughts a little clearer and with a little more substance. Have you ever read any philosophy paper with only one page? I have went back and read three times and even though Devan wasn't framing out his thoughts you seemed to just know what he was getting at. So it makes sense that you're the same person really.

Also, "Someone help me here." is a strange reaction to the accusation, any normal person would be offended and deny it outright. Are you switching accounts right now?

Because you're the one who made the post. You have two accounts. You got so mixed up when using them you kept using the Brett account to counter the arguments I made to the Devans one. both accounts are arguing for the same thing and making fallacial arguments that can be countered with the same argument.

That and I mixed up who I was replying to a lot because I'm new to this particular forum.

Sorry, replied to the wrong person.

Wait people really do that?! That's kind of weird.

We are arguing with the sum of your original argument. Not with your conceptualisation of Forever. You can't pick and choose which part of your arguments we are disagreeing with. You are the one who is making your claims and not tying how they even relate to your original argument.

In case you hadn't noticed myself and god must be an atheist are really trying to help you understand and are posting substantive comments that cannot be broken down by short and poor responses to it.

The only one with a plain limitation on insight is you as you cannot see how "The principle of sufficient reason proves the existence of the initial state of the universe." Also can go this way "The initial state of the universe proves the principle of sufficient reason.". Which means that both concepts rely on the other to be true in order to be true themselves.

I'm not even disagreeing with your conclusion, just your argument for it. Thomas Aquinas believed in god and still disagreed with others arguments for gods existence if he perceived them to be logically inconsistent.

I didn't even have much of a problem with his god argument. For me the real problem was his use of a principle that is born of the belief of a created universe to prove that the universe was created. Not realising that the principle is believed to be true only because it was first believed to be true of the universe. So the proposition "(Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason)" cannot be used as evidence of the beginning of the universe because it comes from this very conclusion. If the proposition is only true if the conclusion is true, then we are going to have some very sticky problems grounding this argument logically.

This implies we KNOW everything about the system. Unless you can prove all things have an initial state, then this argument isn't logically consistent. Our belief that all things have an initial state comes from our understanding of physics and our understanding of physics comes from the observable universe. We have observed things behaving a certain way and so have a number of different theories on how things came about. The time period known as the big bang can only be accurately predicted to a cloud of dense matter and energy pre-expansion. Whether or not it was a singularity or a previous phase of the universe going into the big crunch is what we are arguing about.

Do you understand my point yet? That you are using a circular arguments wherein the principle that supports the singularity big bang model is being used to argue for it. If the principle isn't true and the latter explanation is then how would you ever know when you dogmatically only argue from this principle being true.

I'm done now. I'll leave you guys to your circular arguments about physics. Next time try and do philosophy though otherwise you're just going to annoy people on here when you don't understand what is being said to you.