Interesting stuff. I almost named this thread "the logicism of patterns". A blank canvas seems to have no pattern, but if you draw a triangle on it it seems like it does. Draw a landscape and our brains fire even more neurons. I want to know more about the transition between a bunch of white, a triangle against a lot of white, and the landscape painting. I'm being very Cartesian or should I say logistic about it. Maybe I just have ocd. But i think there is gold in these here hills. I named the thread after St Augustine and his treatment of physical beauty. For him beauty, pattern, order and proportion were not in our minds but in the things themselves. So is there more to patterns than complexity?

If only the present exists them information can be rearranged and have destroyed that way. What is the world's substratum? Big debate

Spinoza adopted Descartes's physics

Descartes also wrote on rainbows. I've read that he thought motion, not extension, was the basic principle of the world (motion explains extension). Newton thought extension explains motion because God set it in motion. Descartes's vortex was intended to show there is no evidence of a creator from nature.

I am willing to bend the rules of logic in a search of my existence, which search might simply end in reading "the sentence" of the Absolute Idea.

Imagine Galileo taking his material objects into his hands and dropping them ten times. They fell at the same rate, history says. He felt satisfied that the law wasn't that on the eleventh the objects would descend at uneven rates. His psychology defined his physics, which was simply philosophy. I believe in the possibility of psychic phenomena. Einstein i see as a good witch doctor or a not Satanic Crowley. Science can never disprove magic, will say it comes from other dimensions, and is probably based on magic in its success.

My brother today said "I want to know what they put in this diet dr. Pepper" . I responded "where do you get the information that would even make the answer to your question even meaningful" . I think the answers to my question is psychology.

So yes, physics is a branch of psgchology, which is a branch of philosophy

Euclids 7th prop first book is a key to understanding this i think, although I don't understand his proof perfectly. The PT seems to work only when the right sides are seen to have a finite length greater than one 1. Of course they can be seen to be uncountably measured but that gets into the Cantor mire. My point is when you have "1 times one equals one" in a geometrical equation it doesn't make sense. So maybe the PT is even wrong when the rights sides are seen as one foot long

The point of philosophy is to entertain all those thoughts and THEN try to find something true without going back to the scientific viewpoint. The latter is the "they" of Heidegger

There is no afterlife for Aristotle. Just an eternal succession of temporal states. All things must pass away he thought, except God or Gods who were in the never reached future. So it's an interesting question if Aristotle thought mathematics was true because of matter or true in itself

Ya, most of that is lost on me but the self cannot be doubted, at least not by the self (I could doubt others peoples sense of self but not my own). Its just incoherent to think otherwise — DingoJones

I doubt my existence more often than I believe in it. I must be in a different state of mind

Also important is that Aristotle thought God or Gods were ahead of instead of behind Aristotle's eternal universe. His God acted as a final cause instead of an efficient cause. This may have some relation to the distinction between this Greek philosophy and Christianity, and to Truth as seen by Aristotle

Aristotle thought empty vacuous matter united with natures, combining to be objects in the world. So things are part material part spiritual. But the spiritual natures were tailored made for matter, to be instantiated. Thus there is the finite world. Then there is his Prime Mover(s). Besides the finite world and the divine, Aristotle thought nothing existed. So maybe math for him was true only in our minds. Unless he would say the Prime Mover(s) guaranteed the truth of them

Even if everything is subsumed under the category of "our thoughts", the world would be just as real, as if it were material. Material, after all, means independent of thought

The self can be doubted, so the regularities of matter can be doubted as well. I can't state anything I know for sure, in words. I feel like I'm climbing a staircase towards the absolute thought. I am he who thinks himself, as Hegel would say. I find him to be my ultimate spiritual master. If God existed separate from me I would kill him. He is not dead so I am God. "But it is only as uniting, subjectively with objectivity that the mind has its wits about it." - Hegel, who spelled soul as " seele", and I believe had a huge advantage over Einstein. Sorry for the rant

No it cant. The act of doubting requires a doubter, the doubter must exist. The nature of that existence might be any number of things (brain in a vat, a gods dream, anythings possible) but that it exists is beyond the ability to doubt, it is the one true certainty. To expand the classic “I think therefore I am”:
“I think, therefore I am *something*. Meaning if you can doubt, then you are something doubting, something that exists. — DingoJones

Maybe nothingness is doubting

I think you are confusing human lack of 100% certainty with some brand of material relativism. The fact we cant be 100% certain or that science can be wrong doesnt mean it isnt describing the material world, nor that the material world is beyond its measure. As I asked you, do you offer something more reliable than science?
Also, could you explain how relativity of material laws is fundamental to philosophy? Im not sure what you mean. — DingoJones

Physics is founded on a static view of the universe that can not be proven over a dynamic view/perspective. Seeing this is through a reasoning that I believe is important in philosophical studies. The science perspective in the Chronicles of Narnia had a big influence on my thinking when I was young. Pushing the limit until the point of saying "is anything possible" is the only way to finally get certain knowledge, as far as I can see

Thomas Aquinas was already talking about this back then (but I cannot find the source of this anymore). — Samuel Lacrampe

it's everywhere in his writings on the soul

One of the foundations of physics is use of the distinction between the random and the necessary. Of course there is no way to tell the difference between those in the real world. What seems necessary may be random and vice versa

Certain knowledge is very elusive, as far as I know its just Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum. — DingoJones

The cogito can be doubted. Doubt of it and science is part of the philosophical endevour

No other knowledge is 100% certain. Even if that weren’t the case, the pursuit of certain knowledge is not at odds with science. — DingoJones

False. The relativism of material laws is fundamental to doing philosophy. I've seen writers on this forum defend Hume and yet also defend physic's validity. They can't see that they are being inconsistent

But philosophy also threatens the foundations of physics. The series Closer to Truth poised the question "what if the laws of physics change" to physicists. The latter failed to see that maybe the laws didn't change but were misunderstood. Laws can never be seen. Certain knowledge is very hard

To always search for certain knowledge wherever it leads: that's the alternative of the world's spiritual advice. If we have no certain knowledge of what matter is, how can one have faith that he understands matter's sequences? Philosophy is at least prior to science.

I'm rereading Hegels philosophy of mind. I want also to read his philosophy of nature and his logics. He definitely thought philosophy superior to physics, calling the latter the poorest kind of knowledge. Humans getting to the moon was nothing other, perhaps, than physicists being the means for.matter to present itself in a form and get us there (to another "planet"). I don't believe physicists have any true knowledge of anything

It is clear that in philosophy all statements are made with a certain interest. In my opinion the reputation of philosophy suffers from the fact that those interests do not get reflected. My guess is that they cannot be reflected as this would contradict those interests. — Heiko

Realizing that matter could have infinite aspects (and forces) is an agnosticism that I think leads to a spiritual way of thinking

Why is it so reliable if its a hoax? — DingoJones

Who says it is reliable? They throw us a theory which, they say, is 70 percent chanced to be accurate. Then they throw that one out for one with 80 percent accuracy, then 90 percent. But if the 70 percent theory and the 80 percent theory were wrong, maybe the 90 percent theory is wrong. They will never get to a hundred percent. Maybe dark matter is the only thing that has force in the universe and moves everything. There is no way to prove otherwise. Maybe dark matter doesn't exist. Maybe the moon goes into Saturn when nobody is looking. There is no objective standard in physics. It's all arbitrary. Hume squashed physics centuries ago, and yet most people think think it's objectively true, regardless of the spiritual consequences

The scientific method is a hoax. They can't define when a law is stable. Something changes and they presume a new force, which is arbitrary because it might be the old force acting out its last sequence

This is not true. Right out of the gate. What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples. — DingoJones

When Galileo drops his objects three times, is the law that "when this physical body named Galileo drops these objects three times, they fall at the same rate" or is it another law? If I witness a person get there head cut off, I can know that this kills people because I am a organic organism too. But physical laws (physics) is another matter. I don't think it's a science at all. I doubt the big bang and EVERYTHING about physic's cosmology. They are always changing their opinions. Back to Galileo. If compatabilism was false and free will was in Galileo, he could randomly select times to drop the objects and get a general law out of it. IF compatabilism is true, this is not so and the random factor coming from free will is stymied. Philosophy is fatal to physics

If we can't get around matter with free will (saying "I did it randomly and it came up always with the same result", maybe the objects fell at the same rate only when Galileo dropped them, he could have thought. Science says nothing certain because we can't understand what "laws" mean

Let me try to explain further. I've simply combined a little Hume with idea that matter could be in complete control of us all the while we bring free. This shows, I think, that the physical sciences don't deal in truth

Panpsychism from a materialist perspective is absurd, unless you consider an amputated thumb to be as human as the rest of the body. I've been re-reading Hegel again. Saying you believe you are God but don't believe in God seems like a rather odd position to hold, but many say that too. Hegel did say you are "all reality" and an "universal infinite principle". In his Philosophy of Mind he specifically rejects that consciousness "receives and accepts impressions from outside, that ideas arise through the causal operations of external things upon it" ect. Hegel says everything is alive because, as he says in the Philosophy of Mind, German idealism arose from a Jew, Mr. Spinoza, and the whole world is an "accident" of the Substance that is the Lord. "Be Him" says Hegel. Don't be lost in trying to find consciousness in a rock, although there is an ancient Chinese tradition that does that

The Christian Bible seems an example par excellence. Lots of the words can be rendered, but once rendered, readers suppose the modern meanings are accurate, and of course to the extent that the words are modern, they are not accurate. Significance and meaning are lost. — tim wood

I was thinking something similar. It seems we have more evidence of evolution than we do evidence that Christians truly understand what the Bible means lol

Nobody can prove nothingness has no importance

a slice of phenomenology from Husserl and ignored the its main endeavor. — I like sushi

What main endeavor was that? Did Husserl ever prove anything people considered now as settled?

Meditation is there for the mind to produce nothingness inside and to see nothingness as pure

I don't see a difference between the 3 laws and it does seem violated to me by the paradox, which makes falsehood and truth identical

Heidegger calls dasein being-wth-care. So the care of Being and our care add more being to an already existing world?

Thanks for the responses.

I think that the universe truly has an objective "look", If only we had the right eyes to see it

Hegel thought we create the world thru syllogisms of the Spirit. A bit far for me

I do believe we can experience all truth in this life

As far as I can see, Einstein sees me as 5" 2 in height relative to my perspective. With different speeds people could truly say I was a different size. Kant however. would say those are psychological experiences inbetween our innate sense of objective space and the noumema of my body. So there is an objective frame of reference and everything relative has to do either with things shirking or expanding, or us experiencing them distorted

Hegel's move was to find the noumena in the world. He thought the origin of the universe was a collision between nothing and being, this the world is becoming as the result. Through becoming we can see the being it comes from, the noumena. Buddhism seems to say that thinking of nothing is wisdom. It's comforting to think of nothing, but I prefer hegels cognitive approach. I want all knowledge in this lifetime, the form of the Absolute

For Einstein there is no overarching space or time for the relative to fit in. I said in the OP Kantian disagree

For Einstein something does not have a definite position and size

Donald Hoffman and many others show how different reality is from our perception. It is philosophy which says reality bounced back to us and is exactly as it appears. This subjective move, I suspect, leads to infinite knowledge