Well, we can presume only because of the absolute tremendous amount of indicative evidence gained through science by using inductive reasoning. — ep3265

“The only argument for the validity of inductive reasoning assumes what is to be established, and is thus logically not valid.”

-Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, physics professors and co-authors of “Quantum Enigma”

Well, we can presume only because of the absolute tremendous amount of indicative evidence gained through science by using inductive reasoning. — ep3265

“Evidence” and subsequent “inductive reasoning” are dependent upon perception, even if apparatus is used (we have to perceive what the equipment tells us). Everything EVER recorded by humans had to have been as such, so quantity is irrelevant. Still, our reasoning certainly has value if only to exercise our capacity to think.

However, unless thought creates, thinking alone cannot reveal to us what may or may not be absolute. It is merely a guess. Again, to paraphrase Obi Wan, “Your perceptions can deceive you. Don’t trust them”.

Information cannot be destroyed. If, given we know in which way the brain interpreted information, then the physical representation can therefore be translated to us. Feelings, factual information, philosophical thoughts, all can be interpreted to an experience in some sense. — ep3265

This suggests, rather strongly, that the entirety of existence is interpretive. And interpretation applies as much to human science as every other aspect of human perception. Since everything is a product of interpretation, how can we presume that ANYTHING is absolute?

Skeptic would be a good thing to be labelled. It would mean you have mastered the basics of critical thought. — apokrisis

Excellent advice!

But I’m not out to “bash” or be “bashed”, nor to “win” an argument in the process. Learning and growth are infinite. I’m content simply to expand. If gain-saying is the winning “formula” here, it would be a waste to participate. I will continue to monitor.

Thanks much for the enlightening dialect!

That's just what they called the introductory epistemology class back when I was little. Hume, Berkeley, Descartes, Kant. The usual crew. — apokrisis

Interesting and informative, thank you.

I have encountered occasional quotes from a few philosopher-types over the course of my 64 years... unintentionally. Plato, Dante, Sartre, to name a few. But have never attended a philosophy “class”. And I have agreed with some of those quotes, disagreed with others, not that my opinion matters.

My discipline is self-taught, self-imposed, though not without influence, of course. If it happens to match, at least in part, an existing line of thought, it is coincidence.

I seek a forum of what I hope is “original” thought that goes beyond what has been thought to date. What I’ve encountered here and on Arktos, so far, has been debates over which “established” philosophy is closest to being, ahem... “correct”. “Right” and “wrong” are strictly human concepts and are, therefore, incomplete at best and invalid at worst.

Must I don the cape of my favorite philosophical crusader in order to be “worthy” of this forum? I know that’s not up to you, but some guidance may be helpful. Non-belief is vastly different from disbelief. I am open to anything, but I find very few human thought-inventions compelling. Is there a label for that?

...around these parts, question everything and believe nothing. — apokrisis

Hmmm... I question everything and believe nothing, so it sounds like I fit in. But I do not recognize the Epistemology label so I have not knowingly subscribed to it. I represent no specific ideology, philosophy, religion or science, at least not willingly. To me (and to all humans, I should hope), they are all fallible. Why the dismissiveness?

Does nature offer counter-examples? What are they? — apokrisis

Nature??? To paraphrase Obi-Wan, “Your perceptions can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

What’s the cornerstone of philosophy? Question everything! Linear thinkers succumb to the notion that “nature” is absolute. I submit it is not beyond question, nor is anything, especially human “definitions”. In order to question what we perceive we must first question our own so-called nature.

All possibilities are binaries if they are to be clear and not vague. To take a direction, you have to be moving away from whatever is its counterfactual. — apokrisis

True if limited to strictly human thinking. But absolute clarity is unavailable to humans whose emotions, agendas and biases distort clarity. Taking ALL directions seems the way to go. If not...

Possibilities come in matched pairs. Or to the degree that they don't, then - as a possibility - they are vague. — apokrisis

...the “matched pairs” way of thinking self-imposes the limit of two choices, BOTH of which MUST include a degree of vagueness since true clarity is elusive at best. Other perspectives persist.

Why does ANYTHING HAVE to be resolved? Perhaps “the truth of the matter” is that so-called life, whether by design or accident, is about dealing with the irreconcilable regardless of clarity OR vagueness. Why is it necessary to EITHER embrace or dismiss? It is an individual’s choice. There exists middle ground where one could be open to all possibilities, not just the binary ones.

...how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing? — Harry Hindu

At the quantum level?

Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.

- Nobel Prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrodinger

Gregory, thanks!

I was 8 years old in 1963 when, while watching the premiere of The Outer Limits, the “Galaxy Being” said, “Infinity is god”. That has resonated with me since. Like you, I tend to dispense with the strictly-human (read: religious) definition of God as a single entity, or Trinity. My definition of the universe is, a multi-dimensional holographic projection of consciousness. Whose consciousness? ALL! Erwin Schrodinger said, “There is only one Mind”. That needn’t be “God”, though humans seem to need to believe they were “created” by a so-called higher power. Why cannot we all revel in the idea that consciousness, and not physicality, is the foundation of existence? And, being infinite, said consciousness is not limited in form.

I agree with you that human science is stuck in a rut. If we can’t perceive something with our five physical senses or extensions thereof, we cannot rely on its existence and, at best, it becomes a variable in our equations; at worst, it is ignored. Belief - faith - isn’t necessary if you KNOW “the secret of life, the universe, and everything” (Douglas Adams) resides within all of consciousness, of which we as humans share access. How much access? As much as one seeks. Some use science, others religion. Both are inadequate even when combined, in my opinion.

So, my suggestion to anyone willing to consider, question everything you’ve been taught, be the unique individual you are and revel in that uniqueness, and devise your own perspective rather than subscribe to a collective way of thought. That contributes to the expansion of consciousness rather than echoing the same thoughts as others.

As a clarification, I am not familiar with Baruch Spinoza, but thanks for the reference.

Also, please elaborate: WHY do you object?

I’d like to suggest a review of exactly what “infinity” is. Since time and space are inextricably linked, another way of saying this is, you can’t have one without the other. As finite “material” beings we exist in a finite material universe. Since when is it correct to assume the universe - made up of matter which has finite properties - is in and of itself infinite?

If we’re calling into question “The Big Bang”, indeed “where” did the singularity from which the creation of all matter sprang come “from”? If “where” didn’t exist before The Bang occurred, then neither did “when”. This implies time has a beginning and is therefore finite. Perhaps the term “forever” applies, but that is a time reference. Eternity is not equal to infinity.

Why? Back to our definition of infinity, and I’d appreciate feedback on this. I interpret infinity as “boundlessness”. Expressed in terms of spacetime, no matter how large something gets, it can still get larger; no matter how small, still smaller. No matter how far back in time you go, you can still go back farther; no matter how far forward, still farther.

We know material objects, such as humans, have beginnings and endings. By extension, so do planets and solar systems and galaxies and galactic clusters... ad infinitum. We know “all times exist all the time”. Again, by extension, would that not imply all “places” exist “everyplace”?

Time and space, as we finites experience them, don’t adhere to the same physical “laws” at the quantum level as what we consider immutable in our macro realm. If time, as Albert Einstein suggested, is a “stubborn illusion“, and reality, as Werner Heisenberg suggested, is dependent upon the observer, then the entirety of existence, in all its forms, is interpretive.

Spacetime is a finite system. Infinity, by the “boundlessness” definition, renders space and time meaningless. The only absolute is infinity. And if indeed infinity is a thing, then its definition not only implies, but insists, that everything MUST exist.

Any and all, please weigh in...