Humor carries the conversation.
Learning is more important than knowledge.
Society decides no one's value.

Worry is pointless---you cannot change the past nor do you know the future---quit worrying!
There is a primal instinct in man which seeks a path to follow, a way of living his life.
Reason is truth's light.

Life is a process---there is no intrinsic meaning.
Examine thyself!
What I claim to know I know not and likewise only know that which I do not realize.

I guess I'll just use this thread to post aphorisms/thoughts then.

Only you can make you happy.
Most people don't understand themselves.
All experience being subjective does not mean external reality is imaginary.

An astute observation.

My most asked question is why people procreate more people, especially if there is suffering? Most people will throw out happiness or something like that. But it's the most important question- more important than suicide. Procreation is about why continue life in general whereas suicide is about why continue your life only. — schopenhauer1

You think what's most important is people not having children and thinking about suicide?

I wouldn't say man is the measure of things since I believe there are external realities--truths--that have some say in what's valuable, sort of like Godel's incompleteness theorem. Personally what I mean by the first statement is that human nature is critical to understand since what is practical must ultimately be based in what is real. Continuing on that thought what isn't is a pipedream.

Philosophers can make argument with anything. I figured it didn't matter what I said someone would take issue with it.

Far out bro

Whuuuh?

Mathematics is immaterial, but I would have said it's also a thing? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I would think mathematics a product of a kind of logic, but could be mistaken. What would we consider mathematics though? The collective knowledge of all theorems and proofs in the field? I would think it a body of knowledge more than an existent singular something, which is what I intuit when I use the word thing. The word that comes to mind when I try to describe mathematics is subject which is sort of thing-esque being existent and singular. I guess the question is whether information exists as something in itself or only by it's interpretation, to determine if knowledge can exist separate from the knower. Now you've done it, I had to go and think!

Dude ask her out.

The soul is immaterial it cannot be a thing. Your consciousness is not a soul, you lose it every night. Your intellect is not a soul, it is merely a means with which to reason. Your brain is not a soul, it is only an object. The soul is who you are, your identity, it is an impression formed from information which we like to think is consistent over time.

Crazy people believe things with no basis in reality, sane people know the difference by conferring with each other about their experiences. Crazy people trust their beliefs enough to jump off of buildings singing "I believe I can fly". Trust is not a step up from faith, both faith and knowledge require trust.

Respect to the vegetarians but that lifestyle isn't for me.

Cheeseburgers, turkey, chicken, tuna, catfish, beef, tilapia, crab, sushi, pork, buffalo, alligator, rabbit, crayfish, lobster, froglegs, deer, STEAK, MMHMM IT'S GOOD.

Your soul is your identity.

Belief is formed in each individual from their experiences, knowledge is just the beliefs we have verified external to ourselves. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or experience, the former more often and the latter more humorously. Faith is an example of a belief held without knowledge, faith is often held only by personal experience and hope.

I've seen some of your poetry around the site. Do you find your stuff on the internet or just make it up as you go?

Laudable it certainly is, this is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever seen here or elsewhere.

You seem like you know what you're talking about. I'm going to do some reading and get back to you if that's alright.

That is an interesting argument. I'd say doing something without someone's consent is wrong most of the time but I think who is born isn't so much a direct act of the parents, it's more like a lottery where one sperm won out. From what you've said in another thread I know you believe in free will, so it shouldn't be hard to imagine that a great number of people could have been born but only one actually got to. I'm glad I'm alive. I think most people are. Conception is just part of nature, I don't think it is right or wrong just a means. I suppose I could try to argue that as the highest creature on this planet with the ability to reason we have a responsibility to continue our species. Perhaps where it would be wrong to allow the population to increase is areas that already have too great a burden, places where overpopulation has already strained resources to the point that people couldn't be taken care of.

A "simple" argument against free will.

While a quantum state evolves deterministically (as a superposition of states), measurement is non-deterministic (returning a single definite state per the probabilities given by the Born rule) — Andrew M

You're saying measurement is non-deterministic, I take that to mean random, so maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Tell me if I've got this right: Everything up to a measurement is deterministic, then before a measurement the path splits and there are multiple versions of the same particle, then a measurement happens totally randomly and one of those particles becomes "real". Is that about right?

I agree with you. Some conversations become so difficult for a layperson (myself included) to penetrate that the whole point is lost.

So in the many worlds version it's like an observed probability but not an actual one. In the Copenhagen version you say the wave function collapses and leaves only one value to measure, can it be any value? This doesn't entirely make sense to me because if the measurement is causing the particle to exist in only one way then that must have been the way it was before the measurement which means the effect would seem to precede the cause. Does anything determine which way becomes "real" or only the measurement? Is the measurement where the "random" part of quantum mechanics comes from?

I've done some reading about this and now I have more questions than answers. My answer to your question is that yes, it makes sense that if a system can be modeled by mathematical equations then there should never be any place in time that system varies from where the equations say it should be. That's what I understand as determinism.

Could god be evil? Does god have free will? Does he/she/it have to be a thinking being or will a feeling or an understanding suffice? The question you're asking is huge. People have literally written books on who/what god is, they still do all the time. I don't think it is realistic to find a one size fits all description it's just more of a personal answer thing.

I'm still not sure how probability can factor into determinism, it seems like a contradiction of terms. What decides which value is measured?

↪Sunnyside I know. I also thought that was the case. Randomness probably applies to sub-atomic phenomena and not at the atomic level. The two are different I believe. Your comments... — TheMadFool

What about them?

That's true but imprecise. Quantum mechanics is probabilistically deterministic. — Relativist

I'm having some trouble with this, could you explain it to me?

In quantum mechanics, concepts such as force, momentum, and position are defined by linear operators that operate on the quantum state... — Wikipedia

You lost me. I've always heard it's random, so I don't know?

I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

I'm not great at logic but this reminds me of the old "You never really get there" argument. Imagine you're on a pitchers mound throwing a softball to a little league player. Let's call him Timmy. So you toss the ball and Timmy swings his bat, but first he has to swing his bat half the initial distance, then half of the remainder, then half of what remains after that. This goes on forever infinitely dividing so that the bat never actually reaches the ball.

In reality little Timmy hits the ball, the ball hits your nutsack, and you hit the ground.

When something actually happens to it by an outside force, then a future instance of it stops being unchanging and changes. This argument only holds true in the past, where once something has happened it "happens" forever.

All knowing is belief but not all belief is knowing.

I'm not a physicist but I believe the "problem" (?) with quantum mechanics is that it's random. That wouldn't support free will but it doesn't sound like it supports determinism either. Randomness is a somewhat frightening prospect, possibly worse than just not having any say because of the anxiety of what might happen at any time. The odds aren't ever in our favor.

Isn't that just equivalent to "an absolute objective way to know something"? Then the problem is subjectivity/objectivity, which no one can agree on because most of us agree that the world is external but all experience is internal. So there is no one shoe fits all answer.

What does a "universal definition for rational deduction" have to do with virtue ethics?

The process of deduction follows standards of logic but the question I have right off the bat is "What do we mean by rational?".

How should we recategorize humans to more accurately reflect our nature? Is suicide relevant to this recategorization? What seems to set us apart is an increased capacity for reasoning, homo intellēctus would fit the bill. Suicide? Really? Oh, wait...the nuclear bombs....

Do you think is possible to adjust your information intake to influence yourself into a positive change? — Ariel D'Leon

People do this all the time when they decide what political authorities to follow.

Can you think of another important point that might be missing? — Ariel D'Leon

It's critical to evaluate the perspectives of the people feeding you the news. There is no unbiased perspective but some are better than others.