Introbert, you want but something to be a philosopher!

Oh for heaven's sake, people, where did you all leave your common sense? There are at least THREE logical possiblities: true, false, or "unknown/unproven/unprovable". Is 2 an even number? True. Is 3 an even number? False. Is the Parallel Postulate true? Unknown, unproven. Forgive me if I have overlooked the Law of the Exploded Sausage.

The assertion "We know we act directly and unconditionally" is, of course, fallacious; there is no reason to suppose that our action is not just another appearance, and thus known only conditionally.

But there is a deeper problem. "Conditionally" entails that there exist some criterion which is "unconditional", otherwise "conditionally" would have no meaning. Comments?

Jack, your enquiry covers an enormous amount of philosophical ground. As a starting point, pls google "natural number" and "axioms of arithmetic"!

Actually, moderators, you ought to move this question to metaphysics or ontology.

It occurs to me, someone might be tempted to object to discussion point 1 because, although we posit the space to be infinitely large, we also posit the number of B Brains to be infinitely large. But, since a B brain would not be subject to the conditions which normally restrict the development of a mammal brain, it is conceivable that it would occupy an infinitely small space.

bongo fury, please don't fall into the habit of relying on Wikipedia to support your arguments! Its contributors are, by and large, utterly unfamiliar with the philosophy of mathematics. Its article listing the arguments to prove that 0 is an even number is an intellectual fog from beginning to end.

How would you calculate density for a infinite number of things (e.g., Boltzmann brains) in an infinitely large space?

Discussion points:

1: it would be impossible. If the space is infinite then, no matter how much space you surveyed, there would always be more space beyond it, and you would have no reason to suppose its density must be consistent with the space already surveyed.

2: How are you defining "density"? Do you mean the average number of Boltzmann brains within a given cubic area? But how could anyone possibly know the answer to that question?

3: What are the physical characteristics of a Boltzmann brain? Obviously, it won't resemble anything that we routinely understand by the term "brain". Would it resemble something like a Hoyle Black Cloud?

4: Suppose there were only one Boltzmann brain, and supposing further that its physical dimensions could be quantified, then the average density in an infinite space would be 1/∞, or pretty much 0.

"P1: If circumstances change a belief, then one lacks a sufficient reason for that belief"

Obviously if circumstances change, then a belief may have to change to keep up with circumstances. That's a no-brainer; it's called "learning".

"Religious beliefs are changeable based on circumstances."

Ok, now you're joking, right?

Thund3r makes a valiant attempt to rationalise an initial post which is essentially unintelligible; what, for example, is the logical connection between natural selection and "evil"?

"For example, there are many cases of people having personal struggles which turn them to God, which is significant evidence for theism. — Ishika" - This is a joke, right?

Have you ever considered the advantages of the objective over the subjective in the advancement of knowledge?

You are at the mercy of the subjective judgements of the mod team, both individually and collectively, re low quality. We don't require your individual approval or any set of external objective criteria to establish our right to pass judgement, — Baden

You mean like in Russia and China?

OK, I think I'm getting a handle on this thread now. I thought we were discussing a problem in arithmetic where, as everybody knows, it is impossible to devise an argument that 1+1=2+1 without altering the axioms or redefining the inductive number line. But it appears that we are really discussing a problem in metaphysics, where of course anything is possible.

Hint: drop the sunflower seeds and Fibonacci numbers. Not helping.

I've noticed a sudden influx of posts in more than one forum which are peculiarly Existentialist in flavour. I have three hypotheses to explain this:

1. It's just a part of the natural flow of any philosophy forum.

2. There is a sudden flood of posts by Sartrean Existentialists who are experiencing philosophical menopause.

3. The posts are generated by AI.

How AI can satirise Existentialist philosophy to perfection!

"If there were not suitable places for such activity, it would happen more in the philosophical threads where it really does not belong."

This is essentially an admission of incompetence on the part of the moderators.

"Philosophers are also humans and like to socialise and go off topic."

That is why we have Facebook and Twitter.

Unfortunately, objective analysis in philosophy does not recognise the right to go "off topic". "Off topic", by defnition, is not relevant to the question being posted. Or am I being too subtle here?

On the other hand, if you are referring to brainstorming (which can have a philosophical value), perhaps the page name should be changed to reflect this. "Shouting" is chiefly associated with Fascist and Communist philosophies.

"Any truth about our origins is relative to us"

Are you appealing to this as an axiom?

I'm afraid I find most of this thread unintelligible. My attention is fixated upon the proposition that in some way we could make 1 +1 = 2 + 1. What modification would we propose to the axioms of arithmetic to make this possible?

Or is Agent Smith subconsciously confusing sets and subsets? Because if we have a set of 2, the number of possible subsets which can be formed is equal to 2^2, or 4.

"Solidity" is directly and immediately relative to the strength and rigidity of the molecular bonds of the material in question. Molecules of iron form very strong and rigid bonds, which explains why you won't fall through a steel floor. The bonds between iron oxide molecules, on the other hand, though rigid, are quite weak, which explains why you will fall through a rusty floor. The bonds between molecules of dihydrogen oxide are incredibly flexible but very strong, which explains why you can dive into a swimming pool without hurting yourself (hopefully!).

The molecular bonds of polyethylene are extremely stong, but not very rigid, which explains why "polythene" is flexible but so difficult to tear apart.

"As a newborn, our sensations are incoherent"

This is actually quite a large assertion, requiring considerable argument. The fact that a baby is generally incapable of interacting socially in a meaningful way, whether by speech or action, does not suffice to prove that its sensations are incoherent. It proves only that its physical (and neurological) development are inadequate to express any thoughts it may be capable of articulating.

"My consciousness is all that I really know exists"

YES! If only Descartes had had the wit to understand this... but he lacked the intellectual honesty.

It is difficult to conceive Mishima's point exactly because of the difficulties of translation... I take him to mean that because German philosophy is so metaphysical, it lacks any point of contact or 'ausgleichfunktionsknopf' to connect it with the real world. I assume that the symbolism of the toilet refers to the only outlet of any dissenting world-view

But I would assume, since that time, that this has been more than countered by the influence of the "Scuola di Coca-Cola" of Western culture?

This thread can drone on as long as one likes! Until someone addresses a couple of elephants on the sofa:

(1) What is "good"? How is "goodness" to be defined?

(2) Ought we to be good? Is there such a thing as a moral imperative to be good?

Sorry to harp on the obvious like that but, as the ancients realised, you must start by defining your basic terms and, with luck, you'll find that many of the questions answer themselves.

The relevance of mathematics would be fairly obvious to anybody who had taken Philosophy 100 in Utilitiarian ethics. But please don't underestimate the philosophy of arithmetic. It is at least as problematic as the philosophy of any other branch of mathematics, precisely because it deals with the most primitive or elemental levels of the science.

Agent Smith is a philosopher; he provokes thinking, which is, of course, frowned upon in any good society.

"According to The Elijah Price/Mr. Glass Principle, at least one actual infinity exists."

I know nothing about Mr Glass or Elijah, but the thesis is provable in set theory, provided you accept that the employment of axioms is inevitable in any science. It's known as the "axiom of infinity": For any natural number n, there exists at least one set with n members. At first glance, this doesn't look as if it had much to do with infinity. But perpend.

Let's say you choose the number 9. Well, there must exist at least the set of the numbers from 1 to 9, otherwise the number 9 would have no meaning. But if you have a set of 9 members, the total number of subsets formable would be 2^9; and from those you could form a further subset, with a cardinality of 2^2^9, and they would form a further subset... and so on ad infinitum.

"God's worst ideas are our best ideas."

Before this "discussion" gets transferred to the religious forum, let me say this: there can be no continuity between our ideas and god's ideas because god possesses all of her qualities to an infinite extent; consequently, from god's perspective, human thinking and human affairs must appear to be infinitely trivial and inconsequential and, quite probably, of no logical value whatsoever.

But of course, my last does not address your main point, which I understand as follows: the existence of an event horizon implies a stronger gravitational field than any we can find in the observable universe. But we do not need to go so far as proposing a singularity of infinite mass to account for this phenomenon. The central mass would only need to be slightly larger than any we can observe. Is that your position?

Michael, your point needs a bit of unpacking. It's often said that "Black holes are... a region within which gravity is so strong that light cannot escape."

"Escape" is a tendentious word to use, because it encourages a sort of Newtonian picture of light struggling upwards for some distance and finally succumbing to the force of gravity, as a rifle bullet would on Earth.

But this is a misleading picture. Light naturally travels in a straight line but, because it has mass, it will follow the contours of a gravitational field. In the neighbourhood of a singularity, gravity curves so tightly back on itself that it creates a hard discontinuity in space/time (like the boundary of a blob of oil floating on water) which we call the event horizon. Light which is inside the event horizon continues to travel in a "straight" line, but following the contours of the gravitational field. So the space/time discontinuity prevents us from seeing it.

The natural tendency of a railway locomotive is to travel in a straight line; but, where the tracks are laid, that's where it will go!

Yes, I think there's a Windows update.

Can you explain D's definition of an "enhanced negative freedom"? I don't personally pretend to understand it.

Blooper: for "cagtegories" read "categories".

'I don't think that there's such a thing like "scientific philosophy". The closest thing I can think of, linguistically-wise", is "philosophy of science"'

There is a difference. "Philosophy of science" is about the nature and aims of science, and its relationship to other philosophic cagtegories like ethics and metaphysics. "Scientific philosophy" occurs within the discipline of science itself, and deals with questions like "What is the nature of infinity? How should we define "the universe"? How do we reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity?" Wherever there is a puzzle in science which cannot be resolved by appeal to current data, you have a question in scientific philosophy.

"A few classes in philosophy is a must for any scientist worth the name."

What the man said!

In the end, Fermi's Paradox fails for the same reason that the Ontological Argument for the existence of God fails: you can't prove a matter of fact by appealing to purely logical arguments. Matters of fact can only be estalished by appeal to data.

Interesting point. To count to infinity would require an infinity of time. Is time infinite? According to the conventional wisdom, time had a beginning; but we cannot currently be sure that it will have an end. Nothing in science currently excludes the possibility of infinite time.

The paradise dome is likely to become overpopulated fairly quickly and this will be an impetus to emigration. On the other hand, a hell-hole may not be a hell-hole to those who live within it because they know no other way of life. A thermal vent in the mid-atlantic ridge looks like a hell-hole to me, but lots of small creatures call it home. How can we be sure that our own way of life isn't a hell-hole by the standards of a more advanced civilisation elsewhere in the Galaxy? But a hell-hole may be attractive nonetheless, just because nobody else wants to live there; so they enjoy a poor but peaceful existence, relatively immune to invasions and tribal migrations. "It may be a hell-hole, but it's OUR hell-hole"!

A century ago, the Newtonian/Euclidean conception of the universe was shattered. And set theory finally enabled us to be certain that 1 + 1 = 2. Doesn't get much more fundamental.

"You're too kind mon ami, too kind! Merci beaucoup! "

Mind you, Smithy, I reserve the right to label your posts as BS as and when I think appropriate...and I am sure you will accord me the same assessments!

"Speaking for myself, there's more to logic/rationality than just being able to think in step-wise fashion from one point to another."

Interesting stipulation! I'm sure there are those who would argue that logic/rationality consists precisely in thinking step-wise fashion from one point to another [provided, of course, that it is the logically NEXT point in the sequence, and not just a random jump...]

Glen, your question is not readily intelligible in the form of words you have used. By "consciousness", do you mean the world of sense-perception, which appears to be something external to (and independent of) ourselves? Or are you referring to mental processes?