First off congratulations on putting together a comprehensive yet concise philosophy in your Codex Q. It is no easy task to achieve that and no doubt took a lot of time, energy and commitment.

So I am happy to discuss philosophy with you, and there is no better place to start than metaphilosophy.

Any and every philosophy is a paradigm. A well functioning philosophy will consist of a collection of self-consistent ideas and perhaps methods that attempt and perhaps succeed in describing the world. But there are more ways than one of putting a philosophy together. A philosophy cannot be constructed without making assumptions and every assumption defines a paradigm.

Do you agree?

A problem is only a problem if you think it's a problem.

What are these destructive conclusions of which you speak?

There is no problem of induction.

That is the way the world is. There is no certainty. Certainty about the real world is an illusion or perhaps a delusion.

I don't really know. Perhaps it is a problem awaiting your brilliance and insight to solve, or perhaps there is insufficient data..or perhaps undertaking experiments in the laboratory that take billions of years to conduct is just too hard..
All I know is that one needs to start with some form of replicating molecule..but what that would look like I don't know.. and yeah it is surprising that no one has managed to identify a simple replicating organic molecule.. or maybe they have and I just don't know about it..

If we accept, as I think we do, that the Earth was created some 4.5 billion years ago when there was no life and that now there is a abundance and variation of life then there must be some process by which that life appeared. Evolution is the obvious process. Most of the variation in life forms were created in the past 500 million years which still allows for 3 billion years (allowing a billion years for the Earth to cool and the oceans to appear.) for something like the DNA molecule to evolve. Doesn't seem too hard for me to believe.

Understanding is a bottomless pit. When people say they understand something what they mean is that they have made progress in finding a better theory to fit the data. But there is most likely a better theory lurking underneath.

Thank you for your detailed account of how numbers can be derived from empty sets and I don't doubt that modern mathematicians consider it fundamental to mathematics, and even most physicists too.

However in terms of the philosophy of mathematics, does it actually achieve anything?.. well that depends upon what you are trying to achieve.
It would seem that they are trying to ling mathematical 'objects' to real objects in a logically rigorous way. But I don't believe that that is the best way to go.
First off why should a set of nothing be any more fundamental than zero or even 1.
Second it creates a mountain out of a molehill.
Mathematics existed and was eminently useful long before anyone invented the concept of 'sets'

what is meant by an 'object' anyway? It is just a label or category if you like for those things that are considered to have objectivity.

Lots of things are inexplicable, perhaps even most things. Though I would say that the appearance of DNA a few billion years ago is a lot less inexplicable than the appearance of time, space, forces and matter some 14 billion years ago.

The fun part is trying to understand such things and try to work out the nuts and bolts of how things could have occurred.

Constructing fundamental mathematical objects out of sets is like constructing bricks out of houses.

DNA has no meaning of itself, only people with a model of the world can ascribe meaning to it when they incorporate the concept of DNA into their model of the world.

"
Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science."

Not if one prefers truth to fantasy.

The Lion and the Unicorn. The lion for stability and the unicorn for eternity.

But what do you say?

I don't think that evolution and morality are so very distinct. Evolution, as you say, deals with biology, but those biological organisms often live in communities. Morals are then the guidelines for behaviour among the individuals for maximising the harmony of the community.

In this way the foundations of morality lie in evolution.

If social Darwinism or evolutionary ethics do not fit in with the norms of ethics or morality it would seem far more sensible and rational to presume that it is the norms of ethics and morality that are in error than the evolutionary social theory.

The primary reason for this is that evolution is based on a solid foundation whereas normative ethics is not.

There is no point to evolution.

My understanding of chemistry notation is that an element can be a substance made up of just one type of atom such as hydrogen gas, pure gold and graphite are elements. Whereas substances made up of more than one type of atom such as water, salts, bronze and carbon dioxide are not.

Certainty is a state of mind.
If you particularly seek certainty then you might try cultivating some myopia and blinkered or tunnel vision; a healthy dose of stupidity might help too.

Just enjoy the sunset.
It doesn't matter whether it is 'real' or not.
The reality of the sunset {and most other things besides) is all you know, and most likely all you will ever know.

I think what it means is that you can shine a light into darkness to illuminate the dark areas but you cannot shine darkness into a light area to make it dark,

I am sure you can draw your own conclusions as to the significance of this.

While I don't disagree with you that idealism constitutes a valid view of the world, it must also allow that within the world of ideas there is also the one that an external reality does exist.

If people submit to tyranny, they deserve to be kicked.

Satisfaction leads to complacency
Complacency leads to decay
Decay leads to squalor
People are scared of squalor, so they avoid satisfaction.

Solution: Lose your fear of squalor.

Only an idealised computer will follow its instructions and only those instructions.

A real computer will respond to input data according to its physical characteristics which may not follow the specified instructions (algorithms) perfectly. There can be problems with the hardware, problems with the software , intrinsic logical problems such as stack overflow all of which conspire to produce output that is not intended by the programmer.

Tu lol

my favorite Australian comedians - Flight of the Conchords.

Since when are these guys Australian? Are you out of your existential mind?

Then the first electron is travelling backwards in time. The diagram still doesn't make sense.

The arrows indicate the direction through time.

1 + 1 does not equal -1 + -1

A woman walks into a bar and asks the barman for a double entendre.
So the barman gives her one!

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/download/777/elec%20posi%20photon..jpg

The diagram looks incorrect to me as it does not follow the law of conservation of charge.

Has rationality and logical analysis actually achieved anything at all?

Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Because it was melodramatic... an overreaction — Sapientia

Well there you have it. A subjective opinion posturing as objectivity.

What do you suppose that "hidden agenda" is? Or is it too well hidden for you to know? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what it is, or even if indeed there is one; but I am hoping to find out.

In either case it seems pointless in posting on this forum. — A Seagull
Melodramatic. — Sapientia

I don't know why you think that was melodramatic, there are lots of other philosophy forums out there.

Perhaps the problem is that "The philosophy forum" is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps you could rename it : "The subset of philosophy that allows for the deletion of posts based on arbitrary judgement and a hidden agenda forum." I know it is a bit of a mouthful, but at least you would avoid the risk of being done for false advertising. It could also be a point of difference between this forum and other philosophy forums.

Why does it matter? — TimeLine

It matters to me because I am a philosopher. I like to understand things. Further I do not accept things at face value, I prefer to look beneath the façade.

Didn't touch your posts personally but that thread is still here. — StreetlightX

Ok I have found the thread. So presumably it was just a few posts removed. But for what reason?

The people who call philosophy stupid are the people who haven't put down the time to understand what philosophy is about. — darthbarracuda

Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid.

That is the trouble with philosophy, it is so hard to show that it is NOT stupid!

And where are you then?

One would be free of the clichés that so many would-be philosophers like to trot out!

Do we need an axiom to create a new philosophy? — gunner

No, you don't need new axioms. All you need to do is get rid of the old ones.

I think one reason for the shift in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" is that the latter is less controversial; — aletheist

I think the term "Global heating' is more appropriate.

It is like heating a mixture of water and ice. The mixture doesn't get any warmer, but the ice melts. Once all the ice is melted, then it will get warmer; significantly warmer.