Welcome to the forum. As for people your own age - most of us here are old people. We consider 50 year olds youngsters. Have you looked through the discussions? Did you see anything you're interested in contributing to? Can you live with a certain level of crankiness sometimes sliding over into rudeness? The forum is moderated and the moderators are generally fair and reasonable, but it is assumed you can take care of yourself.

Take a look at the Shoutbox at the top of the front page. That's the place where people mouth off about just about everything without having to meet anything but the minimum standards of civility. You get to see our personalities.

I can't say you treated the song unkind. You could have done better, but I don't mind. — T Clark

@unenlightened

Let's try this instead:

I can't say you treated the song unfair. You could have done better, but I don't care.

Great song, great musicians, but I don't like it, they overplayed it and over-sentimentalised it, and clearly thought twice or even three times. I wish there was something they could sing or play to try and make me change my mind, but they entirely lost the vitriol and irony of the original. And you even linked it twice! — unenlightened

It's the greatest breakup song of all time and Dylan plays the best version. The bitterness is wonderful. "You just sort of wasted my precious time." Perfect. But I like that Tedeschi mixed the pain in too. That adds something good to the bitterness. I don't see it as sentimental.

I can't say you treated the song unkind. You could have done better, but I don't mind.

The universe is a computational system that continually recomputes its current data state from its previous data state. Minds sample the universal data state as neural data structures in our brains and simulates it as the familiar 'physical' world we experience.

My model of how this happens is discussed in detail in my Complete Theory of Everything at https://EdgarLOwen.info — Edgar L Owen

This is not a thread about the mathematical nature of the universe. It's about cause. I haven't seen anything you've posted here that relates to that.

That's exactly the problem, it isn't science at all, because instead of acknowledging that the predictive failures of the theory are due to a faulty theory, people will assume the real existence a phantom entity, dark matter, as the cause of the unpredictable behaviour. It's no different from saying a ghost did it, or attributing the failings of the model to a dragon. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree.

Light doesn't necessarily have to move in the way predicted by general relativity theory, because there's some otherwise undetectable matter scattered around throughout the universe, which causes the light to behave in the unpredictable way. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am very, very far from being someone who can make a definitive statement in this area, but dark matter and dark energy seem like reasonable rationalizations worthy of being tested. If they can't be verified, then the theories will have to be changed. I sez that's science. You sez no.

It seems to me that forcing the term "physical" into the discussion of causal events is what creates many of the problems that you are trying to solve. — Harry Hindu

As I noted, I just wanted to keep things simple. I think there are issues with non-physical causes that would muddy the waters of a discussion.

Making exceptions to the rule stipulated by the theory, whenever the theory fails in its predictive capacity, to account for these failings, instead of acknowledging that the theory is faulty, is not science. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's science until the attempt to verify the changes to the theory are investigated and not confirmed. If, at that point, people don't acknowledge that the theory is faulty, then it stops being science. Or at least it stops being good science.

Dark matter is posited as such an exception to the rule. Where general relativity fails in its predictive capacity, dark matter is posited to account for that failing. There is nothing to look for except the reasons why general relativity fails in its predictive capacity, i.e. the faults of the theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. General Relativity has been an incredibly successful theory for 100 years. You get to tinker under the hood for a while before you buy a new theory.

As a prefatory remark, I want to state my position that whatever differences there are between how you see things and how I do are metaphysical. They have to do with what we think are the best ways to represent reality. Neither is true or false. I've written a lot about this in the past on the forum. I'm sure you seen some of that. What that means is that the way to judge a position is based on what works best in a particular situation.

Obviously there are no things-as-perceived absent perceivers; does it logically follow that there are no things at all? — Janus

Things are concepts unless you're an idealist. I'm not. Concepts don't exist independent of there being someone to conceive of them.

You haven't answered the question as to how the totally amorphous, changeless thing in itself gives rise to perceivers who perceive change, and "carve up" the world in fairly cohesive and consistent ways. — Janus

The philosophy that means the most to me is Taoism. Taoism doesn't talk about things-in-themselves, it talks about the Tao. I think the concepts have things in common. The Tao is the original unitary undifferentiated oneness. That oneness becomes separated into the multiplicity of things when they are named. As to how namers evolved from the oneness - the Tao and the multiplicity of things are the same. It's just two different ways of looking at it. Metaphysics.

I assume you find this answer unsatisfying. There have been lots of discussions of Taoism and similar topics on the forum. I don't think it's especially related to the subject of this thread.

Serious question - Did Kant think that things-in-themselves changed?
— T Clark

I think Schopenhauer might have been the best interpreter of Kant.. — schopenhauer1

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here, but does that answer my question. It doesn't seem like it does to me.

The term is 'logical necessity' and the question is the relationship (if any) between logical necessity and physical causation. My (tentative) argument is that scientific laws are where these are united in some sense - that scientific laws are where material causation converges with logical necessity. But I know I'm skating on thin ice. — Wayfarer

I called it the wrong thing, but I think my position stays the same. I don't see any connection between physical cause and logical necessity. Seems like the premises of a syllogism are where you load the phenomena we observe in the world, e.g.

[Premise] If I push on this button then P will show up on the screen
[Premise] I push on the button
[Conclusion] P will show up on the screen

The conclusion is connected to the premises by logical necessity, but the only role a physical entity like cause can fill is in the premises.

So the 'thing in itself' is completely changeless and amorphous and any "cutting up" we do is totally arbitrary? — Janus

Before it can change, it has to be a thing. That thing then can change into something else. Change is something that happens to things. Change is a thing.

Serious question - Did Kant think that things-in-themselves changed?

No big bang, no rapid inflationary period, no galaxy formation, no changes on pre-life earth? — Janus

The universe just universes. Reality just realitys. Not-even-stuff not-even-flowing not-even-around. A not-even-miasma of not-even-chaotic not-even-existent not-even-things. Then sentience comes along with it's conceptual knife and cuts all that not-even-stuff into things, and stuff, and events. Cuts the One into the multiplicity of things. And here we are.

Can non-sentient things (non-animals) have perspective? If not, what is the "platform" of interactions? What is even an "event" in this non-sentient/perspective world? — schopenhauer1

I would say that non-sentient beings do not have perspective. There are no events in an a world with no sentient beings.

The problem with dark matter is that it's dark and probably can't be directly detected. Maybe if sky observation techniques get sufficiently sophisticated or if DM particles are detected on Earth it can be solved once and for all. The planned European gravitational wave detector can shed more light on this modern-day enigma. — Haglund

I agree.

I’ve recently read Material Girls by Kathleen Stock. Hadn’t previously realized that there could be such a large and complex rift between feminists and trans activists — praxis

Here's something you won't hear me say very often - I am sympathetic to the feminist position. They've worked hard to improve conditions for women, to improve the definition of women if you will, then along comes this new group and want to muddy the waters. Feminism, while still controversial in many places, is mainstream controversial. To claim that feminists and transgender activists are in the same fight tends to push them out of the mainstream. They lose sympathy for their positions.

This is where the trickery lies. Instead of recognizing, and accepting that when the model fails at the fringes, this means it is wrong, we produce "excuses" for the failings, exceptions to the rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

You call it trickery, I call it science. It's perfectly valid until it isn't. Discomfort about the trickery provides the pressure to keep looking or to change models.

The anomalies are dealt with by positing things like dark matter and dark energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure if that's a good example or not. Someone proposes dark matter as a solution to an inconsistency, so people go looking for it. Eventually, they find it or, if they don't, they have to change models. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

If I push on the keyboard and a P shows up on the screen, I can see saying that my finger caused the P to show up. But isn't that what you are calling physical causation.
— T Clark

Isn't it? Didn't I? It's your intentional action, plus a lot of work by the likes of NoAxioms that has been done in the background, to ensure that it works this way. — Wayfarer

We're agreed to call that "physical causation." I'm not sure what logical causation is then, if it's not the syllogism I used previously.

It's arguably one of the many causes. I mean, the thing probably wouldn't have shown up there just then had your finger not pressed that spot just then. — noAxioms

Agreed. That's why I wrote "I can see saying that my finger caused the P to show up." That's intended as a non-committal statement. We've gone back and forth on the forum discussing what constitutes causality. Those are questions I don't intend to get in to here.

But what about when it is applied to (for example) computing? Then there is plainly causation involved, as it produces a physical outcome. The fact that such-and-such is the case causes a particular result. I can't see how causation is not involved. — Wayfarer

Maybe I misunderstood. If I push on the keyboard and a P shows up on the screen, I can see saying that my finger caused the P to show up. But isn't that what you are calling physical causation. Whereas my syllogism is what I assumed you are calling logical causation. That's the situation where I said no causation is involved.

It seems to me that the widespread scepticism about this issue all goes back to David Hume's questioning of inductive reason. — Wayfarer

I don't see the connection between the so-called problem of induction and what you are calling logical causation. I don't really know what that means.
In this syllogism:

• If A then B
• A
• Therefore B

There is no causation involved. Or did you mean something else?

To me, induction provides the meat that is ground in the machine of deduction.

Beyond that, as we discussed in a recent thread, I think causation is a metaphysical property that is not particularly useful. I assume that is not what you want to talk about and I won't bring it up again.

I just went to a ridiculous example to make the point more obvious. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it's a better example because it represents a real situation - people used the Ptolemaic system for a long time and it allowed them to make pretty detailed, pretty correct predictions. It was finally replaced because a better system was developed that was simpler, more consistent with observations, and allowed better predictions. Your dragon causing the sun to go around the Earth didn't really allow any predictions at all beyond that the sun would come up, which everyone already knew by keeping track of the behavior of the sun.

Like I said, feel free what you think. There is no evidence that we are a pocket in an eternally inflating fantasy. — Haglund

I have provided evidence. You haven't refuted it. You haven't even responded to the substance of my argument. Your only response is "That's fantasy." That's not an argument.

No need to respond. I'm done with this.

I don't disagree with initial inflation. I disagree with the eternal variant. — Haglund

Also, it is my understanding that astronomers are currently looking for evidence of other universes associated with inflation.

I don't disagree with initial inflation. I disagree with the eternal variant. — Haglund

It's not a question of what you and I agree with, it is what the current state of knowledge in cosmology indicates. Again, I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is evidence. Maybe you'll turn out to be right, but for now, it's reasonable for me use the current state of knowledge as evidence.

Thesis: Gods created spacetime and particles.
Observation: There are particles and spacetime
Thesis proven — Haglund

• Cosmic Inflation is currently the scientific model that matches the cosmology we observe best.
• One of the consequences of Cosmic Inflation is the existence of multiple "universes" separate from our own.
• This provides indirect, not conclusive, evidence for the multiverse.

Weren't you the one who introduced this great book here? — Olivier5

It was Tim Wood who showed it to me.

When a hypothesis produces a prediction which works, this does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis ought to be accepted. Prediction is mostly produced from observation of temporal patterns, statistics, and mathematics, and a hypothesis generally goes far beyond the simple mathematics. So for example, imagine that I watch the sun rise and set day after day, and I produce a hypothesis, that a giant dragon takes the sun in its mouth around the back side of the earth, and spits it out every morning. I might predict the exact place and time that the sun will rise, and insist that my theory has been proven by my uncanny predictions. Clearly though, the successful predictions are nothing more than successful predictions, and my hypothesis hasn't been proven at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think a better example would be the Ptolemaic cosmological system. It was very complicated and it turns out in the end it was wrong, but it worked well until Copernicus and Kepler came along. Their theory eventually superseded Ptolemy's. Ditto with Newton and Einstein. I guess Newton was wrong, but we still use his theories for non-relativistic applications, which is most of what we deal with.

I would add Collingwood's Essay on Metaphysics, for its radically simple and effective way to conceptualize metaphysics. — Olivier5

I agree. I struggled for a long time with the idea of metaphysics. I wasn't sure what it is, but I knew what I want it to be. Collingwood helped me put words to that.

Cosmic inflation is no indirect evidence — Haglund

I disagree.

There is no evidence to support many worlds. — Haglund

Cosmic inflation is indirect evidence.

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. — Haglund

I disagree.

"Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it. — Haglund

I used that word specifically to express my skepticism.

Word are merely the final stage in consolidating a set of ideas that begin as felt intuitions. I can tell you that these intuitions had a profound effect on me , guiding my thinking implicitly well before I was able to make them explicit with words. — Joshs

I've had the same kind of experiences you have - experiencing things without naming them or putting them into words. I don't call those "concepts" until they are put into words. People often need words before they even become aware of the experience. They certainly need them to communicate the experience to others or even to put it into a form that you can process yourself using reason. Whatever it is you end up with when you put something into words, it is not the same as the experience. You've created something new. You've taken a experience and jammed it into the boxes that fit.

I think babies are born with some instincts and a lot of built in capacities, but they have to learn about anything specific. I think intuition is learned, not innate. Language, learning the names for things, is an important part of the process.

Interesting. Aside from art, I would consider actions to also have meaning. Take body language.

I guess you would say that body language has no meaning until it has been put into words? I will have to mull over that a bit more. — PhilosophyRunner

A lot of this thread has been about this issue, i.e. what does it mean to put something into words.

Can not actions, visuals, concepts have meaning even when not put into words? — PhilosophyRunner

In my view, experiences are just experiences until they are conceptualized, put into words. Until then, they have no meaning. As I see it, art has no meaning, although many disagree with that. This has been discussed many times in the forum.

Do you have a reference? I'd be interested in reading more.
— T Clark

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5972154/ — Joshs

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Are emotions just expressed is socially significant ways or, as Wittgenstein shows , is their very sense created via these contextual engagements? Putting into words wouldnt merely be relating symbols to already formed meanings but allowing the worlds to form the sense of a meaning. — Joshs

I'm not sure what this means, but I believe that things don't mean anything until they are put into words. That's what meaning means.

I don't agree. — Jackson

You don't agree that multiverses are proposed as physically existent entities or you don't agree with my exposition on metaphysics?

If we say there is one universe we have to explain why there is nothing which unifies that reference other than 'all that exists.' — Jackson

Are you saying that the universe/multiverse distinction is only one of language? I don't think that's what you're saying. Let's define "universe" as everything that is or previously was observable, at least in theory.

A possible world is a logical structure, so a multiverse would qualify. — Jackson

From what I've seen, multiverses are proposed as physically existent entities, not logical ones. If a parallel universe is not physically observable, one of three conditions apply 1) It is metaphysics and useful, 2) It is metaphysics and not useful, or 3) It is meaningless. In my understanding, multiverses associated with quantum mechanics are not even theoretically observable.

Here's the first article I've seen that discusses the possibility of determining whether alternate universes might exist. It still seems a reach.

In mathematics, a dynamical system might proceed to evolve along alternate paths at points of bifurcation. But what happens in math may be mere fiction in the physical world. — jgill

The idea of the multiverse is what I think possible worlds refers to. There is no universe, just multiple universes. — Jackson

In my understanding, possible worlds are different from the multiverse. Possible worlds are metaphysical entities while the multiverse is, at least purportedly, science. It is also my understanding that neither possible worlds nor a multiverse associated with quantum mechanics are even theoretically observable. A multiverse associated with cosmic inflation may be.

We dont have some general body-maintenance feedback first and then have to decide how to explain its meaning by relating it to a current situation. Emotions come already world-directed. There is never just some generic arousal that then has to be attributed. Feelings emerge from within experiences that are relevant to us in some way. We are never without a mood. — Joshs

Do you have a reference? I'd be interested in reading more. Beyond what Barrett says, in my own experience I have had to work to understand what particular emotions are. Babies have to learn everything about the world and how to put it into words. In particular, emotions have to be expressed in socially specific ways. What we call "anger" isn't just one thing, it's a whole bunch of related but significantly different things. That's something else I've experienced directly.

I don’t think they have to learn what they mean in a fundamental sense. What they mean is inherent in their very expression as emotions. An emotion is a kind of appraisal of one’s situation, whether one has a word label for the emotion or not. — Joshs

In "How Emotions are Made," Lisa Barrett describes how children learn concepts, names, of emotions by observing their own internal states, other people's emotional expressions, and the use of words for emotions. Each emotional concept; anger, sadness, happiness; is made up of a whole bunch of different instances that they have to learn belong together. Anger can feel and be expressed very differently depending on the situation and the person involved. This is something that has to be learned.