What right do we have to say that? — Mww

What right was I asserting exactly? I dont believe I indicated that we were necessarily correct. I was only hypothesizing that there is a possibility that we may be or eventually will be. Hence the word "if". And "if" it were such a case that our methods were sufficient to describe the universe generally ... then I would imagine the implications would be seemingly deterministic. If we realised that even the fundamental aspects of the universe change... then nothing could be deterministic

Can you prove that the laws of physics are the only way the world can be? — Wheatley

Probably not considering I am such a phenomenon which arose from a set of conditions (laws of physics) and am subject to them, therefore cannot disprove them or give evidence to a contrary version. It has circular implications which would limit me. Unless I could create another mini stable universe with different conditions but I doubt that's very likely haha

Those are the laws of physics, which do not necessarily mean laws of nature. — Wheatley

True. Granted ...the scientific paradigm is in constant flux and reevaluation while "nature" remains to be fully grasped. But it seems despite not having a definitive set of laws, we can see at the very least that there are certain aspects to the universe which are fundamentally consistent or typified well by laws; frequency, rhythm, finitude/ quantifiability etc.

So to me....whether you are descrining then through physics, biology, geology, chemistry etc is more or less irrelevant to the fact that they no less exist - that is to say there is a sense/logical approach that mathematics is useful for in describing some of the phenomena in nature and I ask why such patterns or consistency should ever exist? Is a pattern a natural outcome of chaos or is chaos a natural outcome of patterns?

Patterns are why we can ask why, not the other way around. — fdrake

So randomness/chaos cannot be a reason to ask why? Hmm...

When I use the word "horse", I don't assume my audience has the same exact intuition about horse-ness that I do. Rather, I only hypothesize that my audience will use the word "horse" in similar sentences, or will utter sentences with "horse" in similar situations that I do. — Adam's Off Ox

Then why use the word "horse" at all? If you dont use the word horse because you know that others apply it to the same object then how would you ever be sure you are even communicating at all? For all you know horse means nothing to anyone except you. So, It's less of a hypothesis and more of an observable, repeatable phenomenon amongst people with your language.

I didnt get born and decide I will use the term horse for this object. I was told what it was and expected to not invent other words for it but to conform and accept its use as standard.

I could make my own language or slang terms. I could even teach that language to others. But then I have rejected the belief that horse = horse and put another word in its place. It doesnt negate the fact that i must make the assumption that the word will be useful or should exist. That i should even articulate the experience in the first place as something distinct and defined which demands a word.

But first, I wonder whether recognising the sense in the question entails making the assumption that it does make sense. — Welkin Rogue

This is correct. You have to assume a question makes sense in order to recognise the sense in it. If I ask the question "do you prefer the colour green or blue?" I think it's fairly sensible. But to a tribal man in Namibia - the question is illogical and impossible to ask, as in their tribal culture green and blue are not distinguished from one another. The sky and a leaf and the same category of colour.

Here we see how language - that is to say mutual agreement between a collective as to how the world is described - influences the sensibility of questions.

If someone says "do you own this land?" I could either say "yes I own this land" or "no" or "what do you mean 'own ' land?" If I am from a nomadic people that do not possess territory. And my answers give information as to what my beliefs are -ie. What assumptions I have accepted about how the world works

. I can recognise that a creature is a horse without assuming that it is a horse, can't I? — Welkin Rogue

In other words you can recognise that the term horse is applied to this creature without assuming the word horse is applied to this creature?
Can one naturally recognise the term "horse" when you they see a horse? As in you look at this creature for the very first time as a baby and you know it is a "horse" and not "caballo" or "cheval" or "Pferd"?

Words are used to define. And to define something is to delineate a boundary between it and something else that distinguishes it by some parameter - a quality, behaviour, mode etc. And in order to make boundaries and discriminate between things one must assume such boundaries are true and not manufactured by the mind.

When I use the word "horse" or any language for that matter I- I must assume i have an audience which can mutually relate otherwise I'm talking to myself. Interestingly if I am making reference to a horse for solely myself I could use a different word every time because I know I am thinking of a horse. But tomorrow it's a bromboline and the next day it's a terracclerometrex.

24. The idealist's question would be something like: "What right have I not to doubt the existence of my hands?" (And to that the answer can't be: I know that they exist.) But someone who asks such a question is overlooking the fact that a doubt about existence only works in a language-game. Hence, that we should first have to ask: what would such a doubt be like?, and don't understand this straight off.

Superb

What assumption am I making when I ask 'do trees exist?' — Welkin Rogue

All questions assume. At the very basis of a question is the assumption that it was worthy of asking in the first place/ may have an answer.

You assume that the question is coherent and sensible. You assume the rules of the English language - grammar, syntax, pragmatics etc. You assume that I may have an answer/response or you wouldn't have asked it. You assume that the internet will work and carry the information to my screen. You assume that I speak English. You assume the extent of my vocabulary- that I know what "tree means". You assume that trees can only either exist or not exist and that there is not multiple other alternative or intermediary states that would negate the valid and sensible use of either of the first two concepts. You assume the qualities of "existence" can be reasonably define to a degree accurate enough to permit its use in a sentence regarding trees.

I'm not saying whether these assumptions are well reasoned or not. Most if not all are. As it's clear I speak English because I'm demonstrating it. But no less they are assumptions that you must apply to construct such a question. All questions assume.

Doubt can only take place against a background of certainty — Banno

Mind blown

If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist — BBQueue

Tell that to every currency around the globe "Hey everyone! This little piece of paper can fund the construction of a house."
" Why?"
"Well, because we all believe it can, obviously. It has this invisible spirit inside it called 'value'."
Makes just about as much sense as collectively believing in a spirit that has influence over you and your life. And yet hey...money does?!?

That is not a reason why octoped descendants can't have freed-up arms. That's just saying that evolutionary pathway wasn't explored here on Earth. — Kenosha Kid

Yes but our arms as we know them -the tools we used to create civilisation, function and are structured in such a way as to work as a pair, to only require X amount of our total body energy on account of what we can hunt and whether said arms have the dexterity to cook. To work relative to lengthy arms and a particular shoulder so as to enable what sort of movements and therefore how many digits, bones and muscles are required... and also that they are suspended and therefore not requiring the weight bearing qualities offered by feet.

The "freeing up of an arm" is defined as what exactly? And how does the number of such arms determine how many are freed up? I dont thing octopeds could have the same arms as us. Whether there arms become sophisticated enough to manipulate materials and build, design and construct or use tools I would imagine very much depends on whether this creature is a land animal or sea, whether is swung from trees or was better galloping with the limbs. And before you know it the octoped you're describing is actually a bipedal primate.

It could be argued that has dinosaurs not been made extinct they , in 65 million, years could have evolved well beyond our feeble minds — paganarcher

Dinosaurs did not go fully extinct, only the majority went extinct. Those who remained evolved into turtles, crocodiles, lizards, snakes, birds etc. As far as dinosaurs go they achieved predator status but have yet to achieve societal/technological status. I reckon without primate hands it would be very difficult to command the dexterity required.

. But I don't see why the details (number of eyes, number of limbs) would be constrained. — Kenosha Kid

They arent constrained. What you're referring to is differetiation of species. An ape with three eyes is not an ape, but it is like an ape. Just as a dog can look like a bear but it is not a bear. Considering all primates have two eyes this animal would likely have it's own lineage as it would violate logical association genetically to apes. Some features are shared by all lifeforms; genetic code, ribosomes, mitochondria, and many others are shared by kingdoms, less so by classes orders and genus and the exact same variations of traits are shared by a species.

Secondly these features are likely constrained by one another. You dont see fish with arms because arms are not streamlined, you dont see mammals with the same amount of eyes as insects because the size difference negates the sensitivity requirements to light, perhaps multiple eyes requires other non mammal traits like metamorphosis or insect like metabolism which again is proportional to size or the degree to which one species is likely to be prey (requiring better vision and from multiple angles).

It's not as if the details as you said - of the number of components is free to be what it wants nor where they are located any more then the quality or function of the component, as they work in integrated systems and must conserve payoffs like the ratio of energy required to sustain 7 limbs: and the degree of function they offer in sourcing that energy. Why have 4 noses when when the most sentsitive singular nose that exists could detect 80% of all chemicals that would ever be necessary to detect in a habitat?

Which brings me back to the belief that life evolves in a relatively organised, ordered and strict narrow defined way. Such as that the same kingdoms necessarily and must coevolve to support one another. And therefore the same ecosystems and environments develop and proceed to generate life that is essentially similar in quality to what we see on earth both in the types of anatomy and the number of its parts

However a derivative of cockroaches will probably out live humans in my opinion — tilda-psychist

Yes agreed...should several catastrophic natural extinction events occur on other planets just as they have on earth one would imagine advanced alien civilisations would be derivatives emerged from basic and numerous lifeforms especially those that have dormant survival forms for harsh conditions such as bacteria, moulds and fungi which are inherently difficult to exterminate. As well as those things that parasitize bacteria etc like viruses (bacteriophages) and maybe cockroaches are there superior radiation protection.

However, consider the minimum time required for the re-evolution of multicellular and complex life, as well as the establishment of diverse ecosystems necessary for the development of brains followed by tool making and harnessing of fire, the creation of agriculture, technology and civilisation. This may well be a long enough time such as that said bacteria, moulds and cockroaches would have already diverged due to pressures into typical lineages; mammals, reptiles, trees and plants, insects protozoa etc.

I see know reason why -regardless of the original catastrophe survivor (mould bacteria etc) - humanoid features would not yet again be functionally selected and progress to humanoid aliens. And should a catastrophic intervention and destroy the process that it would not just re-emerge again

I do not think our physiology is the only one that could support mental ability — paganarcher

No I dont believe our physiology is the only one that could foster high mental ability. I agree. Many other animals could be equally intelligent if not maybe even more than us. But it seems that only human physiology and anatomy enables such a mental ability to take charge/ dominate a planet and created tools and technology to such a degree as to be considered apex and likely the subject of alien/interstellar travel and communication.

I think it's likely that any aliens we might encounter would have what we would call hands and humanoid features that go along with it (primate genetic line) rather than flippers or tentacles or paws

Evolution history is limited by what is possible, not vice versa. — Kenosha Kid

If evolution is limited to what is possible on earth (earthlike conditions) then wouldnt it progress in a similar fashion on any planet if said earth-like conditions are essential to life?

But I can't think of a reason why they must have evolved from quadrupeds and not, say, an octoped. — Kenosha Kid

Because we have octopeds and they arent our direct descendants. As you explained bipedalism was conducive to the development of the human hand. So an Octoped is probably not conducive to the same outcome considering the large degree of more change (loss of limbs) that would have to occur in the same timeframe in order to get the the same evolutionary form as an outcome. And I'm a firm believer that biological pressures (like water) take the path of least resistance using the minimum amount if energy required to propagate survival of a species. In that sense it's more efficient for a quadraped to begin with, which can migrate in both directions to those which have no legs and those with have numerous. Rather then beginning at an extreme/pole regarding a characteristic.

What differentiating characteristics are you thinking of? — Kenosha Kid

Ah okay fair I see what you mean. I'll clarify. Would aliens be bipedal with hands/opposable thumbs and look characteristically like us more so than we do to our closest biological relatives and secondly would their biodiversity have the same kingdoms and relatively consistent taxonomy to earths? Due to the fact that organisms fill levels and modes of existence that are available. Such as parasitism, symbiosis and other interactions.

As in if I went to their planet would I have an intuitive sense of their version of something? Or would their lifeforms be unrecognisable even in the same environmental and physics parameters - an earthlike planet

I'm at home and my clock seems to me to run at a certain rate. My twin on the spaceship describes exactly the same phenomenon. But on his return I'm sixty years older, and he twenty. — tim wood

Yes but you're referring to things with mass. Things with mass such as a clock or two twins arent ever going to reach the speed of light. So no, for matter -time cannot stop it can only change relatively. But if you imagine a photon at the speed of light surrounded by other photons with the same velocity, the distance between them is negligible, the time it takes to go from their origin to their destination is also negligible so for a photon time doesnt occur.

Also if the universe has finite energy, it has a finite spectrum/scale of rate for which reactions and interactions can occur. A point of maximum change and a point of minimum change. I would imagine the minimum rate of chnage would be one whereby no information exchange occurs at all (no time).

Imagine if you were a snail. At the speed of an elderly woman walking down Main Street with a cane, the same is true. In a way. Yes? — Outlander

Hmm. I'm not sure sure. This assumes the snails conscious perception of the passage of time is proportional to its size/distance travelled. But I dont believe it works that way because many small animals/insects travel vast distances within their short life which would be the equivalent to us travelling throughout our solar system proportionally.

A bee hurtling along on a wind current isnt going to experience time dilation or relativity just because it's small.

Is there anything particular you have in mind that differentiates humans from other apes — Kenosha Kid

Several traits differ us from other apes. Just as several traits differ a chimp from a gorilla. What exactly is the relevance just out of curiosity? All I'm simply saying is would it be likely in a universe where the same conditions are required for life that the same type of life would emerge and thus civilisations capable of contacting us would look very similar? Perhaps not.
But as far as I know physics and chemistry still exerts the same effects by the same laws and combinations. And natural selection I cant imagine would work particularly differently anywhere else.

Because we get energy from two things: our mass and our momentum. Light is pure momentum: E=pc. A body at rest is pure mass: E=mc2E=mc2. This leads to the interpretation that any restful body is not actually at rest but is moving through time at the speed of light. So in that sense everything moves through spacetime at velocity c, but photons can only move through space, hence no time passes for a photon. — Kenosha Kid

This is so cool

There are myriad ways to order something. — Kenosha Kid

Yes there are. So are there the same myriad ways of ordering one type of thing as there is a collection of different things with respect to one another? As my question asked? What does variation in quality do to the capacity to which you can order something and can "one thing" have equal amounts of information in it as "all things combined" ? I never mentioned a bag btw. I mentioned three separate individual scenarios based of the same concept

You already started a thread on this yesterday. Why did you abandon that discussion just to post another OP with the same ignorant tosh? — SophistiCat

That question was regarding "life" and entropy. This question regards entropy and classification/ definition of order. If you had read carefully and comprehended my line of questioning you would have observed the clear distinction. Besides, I wasnt aware I could ask a question on the same concept more than once perhaps I should never consider "time" or "consciousness" or any other topic further because I've already asked one question about them.

Whether you find my questions ignorant tosh or not is up to you. But personally, I feel that needless ridicule of someone for being curious... is pretty ignorant. I wouldnt like to be like someone like that and quite frankly their views with lack of respect for another individual.. dont really impact me at all.

Oh, go ahead. Science might be relevant to religion, but not vice versa. — Banno

Well that would depend on the religion wouldnt it? None of the major religions likely have much in the way of scientific contribution. But religion is not a finite and historic human phenomenon. There will probably be many more religions in the future. They, like science ...evolve and reshape. I for one have spiritual beliefs that dont contradict current scientific discovery but rather facilitate the philosophical and conscious aspect of the phenomena we have defined scientifically.
There are parties which wish things to be conserved as they are and parties which wish to shift the paradigm to a better interpretation in both religion and science. Perhaps a religion that integrates science or at the least aligns itself with such scientific facts as not to be contradicted while still pertaining to an ultimate singular force or God from which things develop may one day exist and maybe even already. Or a unified humanitarian view that encapsulates both religion and science and there interplay in a larger umbrella belief, view, finding or state of knowledge.

Nor do I see religion as antithetical to science, so much as irrelevant. As it is to ethics. — Banno

You think religion is completely irrelevant to ethics? I think the principle tenet of religion (be kind to one another) is fundamental to ethics. That isnt to say that religion isnt full of other contradictions and has been used practically in very immoral ways but they do have ethical principles at their base aside from human error trying to abide by them.

Secondly, by saying religion is irrelevant to science is to say science cannot be employed to understand any of the content of religion - as it is irrelevant - which is to say science cannot tackle creation or the nature of being etc which it very much can and does. So religion and science cannot be irrelevant to one another as they both give explanations for the same phenomena.

I agree for the most part with what you're saying. However I would make the clear distinction between my views and yours by welcoming religious debate within the realm of philosophy ( as philosophy of religion is an area of study) and also because ontology, epistemology as well as several other concepts relating to origins, the universe etc are inextricably linked to non-secular writings/doctrine.

But yes absolutely there should be a disciplined approach to such topics, in that one (religious or otherwise) should employ critical thinking, rationality and reasoning in their arguments either for or against God. More importantly I think any debate regarding God(s) should begin by establishing a definition of said God. Because it is rather pointless to talk cross-purposes with someone if they both hold completely different notions of what/how a god is.

Theists in essence try to define God. That is all. The byproduct of such an endeavour is all the writings, parables and stories surrounding it. I think rather than using science against religion and using religion against science/empirical data, we would be wiser to integrate both and try and establish commonalities. What did both parties get right? Within a loose metaphorical sense.

"Preaching" - is coming to the forum with an established view and the intent to convert or forcibly change others views without due philosophical process or evaluation. I think if their is a God he/she would be reasonably open minded so we ought to be also

the fact that we are much more likely to catch diseases from human and pig faeces than dog and cat faeces — Kenosha Kid

I'm not so sure this is true. Parasites like round worm, guardiasis, cryptosporidium, toxoplasma gondii, ticks, fleas, cat scratch fever and the bacterial infections caused by the genera canimorsus, Pasteurella, Salmonella, Brucella, Yersinia enterocolitica, Campylobacter, Capnocytophaga, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Coxiella burnetii, Leptospira and Staphylococcus intermedius, as well as noroviruses, rabies and severe allergic reactions to hair, urine and skin are all transmitted/induced to humans via cats/dogs.

Considering the substantially greater time we spend in close contact to domestic dogs and cats than to pigs one would imagine the incidences of transmission are relatively high.

I think a "thought" should have to be propositional — GodlessGirl

So emotions wouldnt be under the umbrella of thoughts? They dont necessarily assert any opinion or view they can just be reactive and instinctive. Nor would imagery or any other "wordless" concept as they are depictions not assertions. Nor any idea that you dont have an opinion, assertion or judgement on. I think to assume that thoughts are only propositional limits them to linguistic in quality -a thought made of words or a "narrative/monologue etc" or to even having a sensibility/rationality to them that could be attributed to proposition. Nonsensical or discordant/ disjointed or psychotic thought is still thought of a kind but I cant see the proposition these ppl would be making. Sometimes thought has no particular agenda -so how could it propose?

Because "propositional" refers to a statement or assertion that indicates ones opinion or judgements. I think thought goes far beyond that. This disregards subconscious thought or unconscious thought (dreams) as how could they be an opinion or judgement if they are uncontrollable and spontaneous?

So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused — Devans99

Well, even a universal law of causality exists it doesnt exclude the "self-causing". Consider the point at which time has not started, in this singularity cause and effect cannot apply. Because there is no time progression. If time and causality begin from the same source you only need that one phenomenon to exist in order to produce a universe that has duration.

I like to think this source is energy itself. Considering it travels at the speed limit and cannot be created nor destroyed. A universe without time doesnt destroy energy because energy is the potential to do work. Potential does not require time. Only the results of potential require time and if time itself is one of the results than you can see how energy can result in causality. Energy is the cause and the effect simultaneously....because it is always conserved.

Whether you believe pure energy is God or not I dont think matters. It could well be. Not for me to decide but in either case it's still a remarkable and awesome characteristic if the universe

The doctor should say: Congratulations, you are on the first rung of the ladder to sanity — A Seagull

Hehe

This makes a lot of sense.

Non sequitur — TheMadFool

yeah I digress. Me off on a tangent... sorry it happens sometimes

The question then is this: [are there] some things that matter interacts with [but] are not matter? — TheMadFool

Well the irony of such a question is that in order to create/ define/distinguish anything - a phenomenon, a material object, a concept... one must say twi things; 1). Yes this thing is that. 2). No those things are NOT that. Ie does matter interact with that which is not matter, of course it has to interact by the mere fact that we can qualify what matter is at all. Its relative to the empty space around it.

Matter could only never interact with that which it is not if the entire universe was composed of matter of a set kind. Any distinction results in a border and borders are where interactions occur.

Are hermits insane? — TheMadFool

Do hermits not have a functional niche in societies? They can live a harmonious life that is not disruptive to other social members. Their solitude does not separate them from collective society. I also

Yes, but the usual recommendation is to put facts before all else. — TheMadFool

see no problem or insanity there.

Believe facts, avoid things that contradict facts. — TheMadFool

Facts contradict facts. It was a fact that we lived without artificial lighting. Now its fact that we do. Facts like beliefs are subject to change and redundancy.

Being sane doesn't imply your beliefs have to be fixed. In fact sensible people always make it a point to update their beliefs in light of new evidence. — TheMadFool

I didnt imply that. The point of determining that both facts and beliefs can completely 180 over time is to highlight that "delusion" can never be fully determined just as no one can describe perfectly the "reality" as to which "delusion from" refers to. Otherwise I'd imagine they would be incredibly famous. Some people are considered insane for extreme and new ideas or predictions only to later be proven correct. At what point do we decide to permit them a "sane" and accepted perception of reality. To me there is no "Delusion" but simply an "alternate experience of reality" - and perhaps that approach would omit stigma surrounding insanity and open minds to to more compassion, patience and tenacity in understanding a human being.

Yes, but the usual recommendation is to put facts before all else. — TheMadFool

.

What kind of facts? Scientific? Financial? Political? Social? Technological? Facts are not necessarily conducive to ethical imperatives. Which I'd imagine in a case of dealing with suspected cases of psychosis or "insanity" etc is fundamental.

You lost me there. I'm working with the standard definition of insanity which includes delusional thought and losing touch with reality. — TheMadFool

Exactly. It defined with reference to "delusion" and "reality". What are those? Can you define them for all 8 billion of us please? You cannot avoid personal or culturally bias in the determination of "insanity".

Well, if you think it's just an issue of "just in a dramatically different way" this question doesn't make sense does it? Why should functioning in society matter if insanity is just a "dramatically different way" of experiencing reality? — TheMadFool

It shouldn't. That's my point. "Insanity" shouldn't be associated with societal dysfunction. That leaves the door open to misdiagnosis of people experiencing just a temporary crisis or change in behaviour, those which reject societal expectations and make it known, or anyone who is protesting, revolting, boycotting or making any social disruptions, and those who choose their personal "beliefs" over "facts" such as the religious, the spiritual, mystics, mediums and all the other alternative and unusual lifestyles.

amounts to losing touch with reality — TheMadFool

And what such reality is that to which they are losing touch? Define "reality" in an impartial objective way removing all personal opinion. As far as I know in a strictly philosophical sense something real (a person) can never lose touch with reality or they wouldn't exist. They are perceiving the same reality as everyone else just in a dramatically different way.

Now if you said losing touch with "societal functionality" then I would be more inclined to agree. Insane people have a sense of reality it's just incomprehensible to the large majority of society and perhaps repeatedly changes. Is it harmful? Maybe so, but I would imagine not always.

building a belief system around what we call facts (truths of our world) — TheMadFool

How can one build a belief system around facts? Unless they are resisting the acceptance of fact and would rather believe things around them instead. Furthermore I have an issue with the differentiation between "fact" and "belief" anyway.
Both are subject to change/revision over time. Many things considered fact in the realm of science and medicine have been completely disregarded for better "facts" which we have no idea in the future may be overruled for even better "facts". This being a paradigm shift/copernican revolution.

It is a fact that the world runs using money. It is a belief that upholds the value of money. See how belief and fact can overlap and directly influence the existence if one another? I really think their are just concepts. And some concepts are highly useful and widely shared- facts. And some are more individual and less applicable - beliefs. But qualitatively theres little in the difference between them.

"Proof" as with regard to belief and fact is a time dependent thing. It is also a definition dependent thing. Change the definition of what you are trying to prove sure enough the proof will always fail at some degree or scale. Similarly try to prove the same fact over millions of years and unless it's extremely general it's likely to fail.

So, if we are talking about insanity, we arent talking about reality or delusion - because no one has authority of their descriptions, nor fact or belief, but rather whether "their reality" is tolerable by "my reality" and "others realities". It comes down to fear of the unknown or the poorly understood. Fear of chaotic behaviour and a lack of predictability. In essence societal fear that they cannot "control" the insane within the relative degrees of freedom permitted to people which must function together.

Can this person function socially? No. Can I or anyone understand them? No. Therefore they must be deluded, psychotic, insane or otherwise mentally deranged.

If it's being implied that a person claiming [his own] insanity is sane are we to infer that a person claiming [his own] sanity is actually insane? :chin: — TheMadFool

Well, within reason, yeah. I would simply ask you to qualify "what is the normal mind, the normal mental state?"

I think anyone who claims they are completely sane, that is to say that they hold no delusions whatsoever, merely show a resistance to accepting the fact that they dont know fundamentally very much about anything, about the what and how the mind is and more importantly how it ought to be. Very few probably do. In essence its ignorant to plead wisdom. So that kind of blind arrogance as to assume you are the status quo, the state of true normality....is pretty ludicrous.

I think its wise to always maintain a regard for yourself as potentially hazardous, as capable of immoral conduct, of behaviour one would consider erratic, illogical, insane. Sanity is relative and it's also a very broad spectrum. I would trust one who is unsure of their mind but cautious over one who is absolutely positive their beliefs assumptions and behaviour are the correct and ideal ones.

Energy,” based on E = mc2, is inconceivable without time; — aRealidealist

Energy as "change" or the "act of doing" is for sure inconceivable without time as to accomplish anything one needs time, however energy as "potential" to do work is not dependent on time I would say. As the potential/possibility to do work is not the same as "doing" work.

Consider it this way; if I have 20 kilojoules of energy act over the course of 10 seconds that wont be the same as the same 20 kilojoules acting over the course of 10 years. This is essentially differences in the "power".

So despite energy requiring time to act... the rate (or magnitude or intensity) of energy can be as described as a ratio of energy or work done over time.

2. The magnitude of the effect is proportional to the magnitude of the cause.
This is also not true. The very notion of an explosion (an exothermic process) is a process which produces a net energy gain. The heat of a match is much less than the heat of the dynamite explosion it triggers. — Richard Bronson

My question would be where do you draw the line between cause and effect and thus their equivalent energetic magnitudes. I would say you could equally argue the case of "an ignited dynamite stick with virtually all of its chemical potential energy still remaining" as being the cause of a chain reaction which leads to all of the chemical energy being released as an explosion (effect) regardless if what ignited it.

An ignited dynamite stick is the cause of an exploded dynamite stick just as an ignited matchstick put to a dynamite stick is the cause of ignition, intention of the pyrotechnician is the cause if the matchstick igniting, production of the matchstick is the cause of the matchstick existing, a tree is the cause if the wood used, an ecosystem the cause of a tree, the universe the cause of the ecosystem.

So why not say the universe is the cause of the dynamite stick explosion? Its equally correct. Why must the cause be the closest to an event in order to be granted the title "cause"? If that were the case, the last atom of dynamite to release the final portion of energy contributing to an explosion caused the explosion of X magnitude not the dynamite stick.

As you can see the series of events can be chopped or bound together into any duration. The end if an event or beginning of another is arbitrary and at most limited to how we use words in language to define things as something tangible and finite with a beginning and end. Really though, all things are overlapping, tamransient and blend into one another