Brief preliminary reply:

I meant that abstract facts, and other abstract objects are timeless.

They aren't in spacetime at all. universes can come and go, and they're unaffected.

If there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts, and so there would be a fact.

Your objection to that is that there wouldn't be any time for there to be a fact. But abstract facts don't need any time to be in. They just are. ...independent of time and space.

Someone could answer that there could obtain a fact that says: "The only fact is this fact that says that there are no other facts."

Yes, but it's special pleading, a special brute-fact, unexplained and calling for explanation.

Besides, abstract facts, and isolated systems of inter-referring abstract facts are entirely independent of anythiing else, not needing to be factual in any context other than their own local inter-referring context. A local isolated inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need any context other than its own, in which to be factual. It doesn't need any sort of global permission for there to be abstract facts. And it isn't subject to any global prohibition, rule, or fact about there not being any abstract facts.

Such a system doesn't need to be factual in any larger context, and doesn't need any medium in which to be, to be true, or to be factual.

This is just a brief preliminary answer.

I heard that Wittgenstein said that there are no things, just facts. I like that.

Michael Ossipoff

I just want to add that, though philosophical objectivity and generality suggest against saying that uninhabited universes aren't real/existent--Nonetheless, when we're talking about this one, there's a meaningful sense in which it can be said that it exists (as a life-experience story) because of you:

You're in a life because, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one about you. ...one with you as is protagonist.

That explains why you're in a life.

And you the protagonist, the central component, of a life-experience possibility-story, are that story's essential component. So it can be said that you're what makes your life-experience possibility-story be a life-experience possibility-story.

You're in a life because there's a story about you, and you're the reason why that story is a life-experience story.

Life isn't a limited commodity or event that eventually runs out. Life is timelessly there, and unlimited.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, I claim that the system of abstract logical facts corresponding to our universe (one of infinitely-many) is inevitable, and so it's its own explanation.

Because we're used to regarding out physical universe as "concretely" and objectively existent, and were always taught that, then it sounds unvelievable when it's claimed that our universe is just a complext system of inter-referring abstract if-thens.

But, as I was saying, among the infinity of such logical systems, there inevitably is one whose events and relations exactly match those of our universe. There's no reason to believe that our universe is other than that.

That provides a neat answer to the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

There isn't the "concrete", objectively existent, "something" that Materialism believes in.

Just infinitely many worlds of "if". ...complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts.

------------------------------

I've been saying that the only real/existent universe is one that has experiencers, But (as I was saying at another topic-thread), maybe that's animal-chauvinistic.

...animal-chauvinistic to say that only the universes with experiencers are relevant or meaningful (because they're relevant and real to us experiencers).

"Alright", said the Giraffe, "then let's just say the one with the longest neck gets all the jelly beans.".

This is just an issue about which universes we call real, existent, relevant or meaningful. Of course that's an arbitrary matter, about how we choose to call it. Maybe, for complete generality, philosophy should be objective enough to not define universes' reality, existence, relevance or meaningfulness in terms of us experiencers.

But, regarding our particular universe, which has us experiencers, then of course it seems most reasonable to describe it from our individual point-of-view, our life-experience possibility-story, because that's what it is, for us.

Among the infinity of possibility-worlds, it's inevitable and natural that there are infinitely many that have experiencers. We're inevitable and natural.

Obviously such universes, ours in particular, have a special relevance and reality-status for us.

Michael Ossipoff

This means that Schopenhauer is the first to read desire as the cause of representation, rather than representation as the cause of desire, as in the realist view — Agustino

Well, maybe the first Westerner.

But that's impressive, that someone in the West was saying that in 1818.

Michael Ossipoff.

Sure, by "relevant" I mean "relevant to someone", and so a universe isn't relevant to someone unless there's someone--That's a tautology (and circular?). — Michael Ossipoff

Ii guess what I meant by that was just that, when I said that having us (experiencers) makes a universe more relevant....to us....

...that sounds a bit animal-chauvinistic.

"Alright", said the Giraffe, "then let's just say the one with the longest neck gets all the jellybeans."

I don't suppose it makes sense to declare an absolute official standard for a universe's existence/realness, based on whether it has us (or someone like us). Maybe philosophy should be more objective than that.

But, where there are experiencers (us), then of course it makes sense to define their (our) world as centered around them (us),.. because that's the nature of experience.

...justifying my emphasis on life-experience possibility-stories.

It's inevitable and natural that, among the infinitely-many possibility-worlds, there will be experiencers. We're natural and inevitable.

We and our experience naturally seem like everything, to us.

Michael Ossipoff

I''m not saying that Experience or Experiencer is a metaphysical substance or entity that exists, independently of anything else, without explanation.

But, as we all know, it's the sine qua non, in order for a world to have meaning or relevance.

We experiencers arise as part of the possibility-world that is the setting for our life-experience possibiity-story ...a world consisting of inevitable abstract facts. (But those facts might not be so inevitable without us)

So we don't have independent existence, independent of our world. It's just that it would't mean anything without us. And, arguably, speaking of the abstract facts, themselves, wouldn't be meaningful without experiencers.either.

...a world dependent for meaning on something that is part of it and arises in it..Circular, but that's ok.

We're a part and result of a world that wouldn't be meaningful or relevant without us.

Isn't it true?:A universe wouldn't exist or be real in any meaningful or relevant sense without someone to experience it?

A logical system seems a little less dependent on us. We can speak of a logical system without observers, but if there really weren't any, {i]then[/i] who'd talk about it?

So a universe, and maybe even a logical system, has to be relevant to someone. In that way, experiencers are at the top if the reality hierarchy--even if we're a result and product of a possibiity-world. That's why I called experiencers and experience metaphysically primary.

Sure, by "relevant" I mean "relevant to someone", and so a universe isn't relevant to someone unless there's someone--That's a tautology (and circular?). That's ok, isn't it? It's ok with me :)

All this has a tenuous and wispy sort of reality/existence, and that's ok too.

Michael Ossipoff

Wayfarer & MysticMonist—
.
(I wrote this in Word, and I didn’t want to post it till I got it the way I wanted it. But I don’t know if I’ve really neatened it up enough. But I was fairly careful and conscientious about that.)
.
I try not to be, and don’t want to seem, dogmatically “know-it-all” or overconfident in my metaphysical claims, but I think that if there are or might be metaphysical certainties, then they’re worth considering.
.
1. MysticMonist—
.
Regarding your post about disadvantageous births, bodily-injury, and fairness, as relates to Materialism vs souls:
.
Materialism is a grim, pseudoscientific, fraudulent accountant, and its account of what happens to us is dire, as you described.
.
In contrast:
.
The Idealism that I’ve been proposing, an Eliminative Ontic Structural Anti-Realism, implies an openness, looseness and lightness.
.
There needn’t be any solid, concrete, objective basis for physical “reality”.
.
(Of course I’m not claiming that that’s original)
.
Experience is metaphysically primary (I understand that some have reasonably spoken of “Will” as the basic component of experience). What would a physical world or even abstract facts and objects mean without experiencers?
.
A possibility-world and its component abstract facts obtain for someone. …a life-experience possibility-story is about someone’s experience.
.
The Materialist fraudulent accountant says that life and whatever is good is a commodity in limited supply.
.
No, Life is timelessly there, for, relevant to, in relation to, and because of us.
.
As for death, we can all agree that it’s like going to sleep. A well-deserved rest and peace & quiet. For one thing, that’s an end to whatever ordeals we had in life, and the experience ends with peaceful rest. That’s another thing that we can all agree with.
.
There’s nothing wrong with going to sleep—It happens daily.
.
Of course, as Shakespeare pointed out, sleep has dreams, and the experiential details are another question. …one that we probably can’t know for sure (When we get there, we’re too unconscious (lacking in waking-consciousness) to know that we’ve found out). We needn’t agree on the experiential details in the sleep at the end of a life.
.
It’s now known that we don’t remember most dreams—only the ones that occur at or near the time when we wake up. And, in those dreams, we don’t know that there’s this waking-life.
.
That’s experience that we don’t remember, during which we didn’t know about our waking life. …suggesting caution in ruling-out metaphysically-implied experiences after death.
.
No one would deny that this life is temporary. Our experience is Timeless—a statement that I’ve justified in various posts to these forums.
.
The NDEs are early immediate after-death experiences, but I’m referring to later experiences.
.
I suggest (I’ve talked about it in other topics) that probably it usually leads to a next life, because obviously, whatever is the reason for this life starting, and if that reason remains later, then what does that suggest?
.
Just a plausible suggestion.
.
I’ve posted at length about that in other topic-threads.
.
…and also about the Timelessness at the end of lives. No one ever reaches “oblivion”, or the time when the body is entirely shut-down and no longer supports experience, perception or awareness. Only your survivors will experience that time.
.
I suggest that, at the end of lives, shortly before complete body-shutdown and fully complete unconsciousness, of course there already isn’t waking-consciousness, and the person, at that late stage of shutdown, is far past any knowledge or memory regarding life, identity, time or events, or that there could even be such things. …and has reached Timelessness.
.
Eastern traditions suggest that very few people get that far into the shutdown at the end of their life, because, before that stage of shutdown, while their unconscious life-related inclinations and feelings (including “Will”) remain, those remaining life-inclinations mean that they’re in a life-experience story. …the beginning of one, because those subconscious life inclinations, feelings and identity are an early beginning experience in a life.
.
But I admit that those end-of-life experience suggestions are speculative. All that we can agree on for sure is that the end of a life is like going to sleep.
.
So I’ll just emphasize something that’s more certain—the lightness, open-ness, and looseness of metaphysical reality.
.
…a metaphysical reality without lack, final loss, or some sort of limited supply—There’s nothing concretely, objectively existent anyway.
.
…in contrast to the pessimistic, closed, and grim account that we’ve always been told.
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Wayfarer & Mystic Monist—
.
You spoke of spirit and soul. Are you referring to a Dualism or an Idealism? I think that, contrary to the poll-result, most people here are Idealists (as am I).
.
I regard Experience (some people emphasize “Will”) as metaphysically primary, but I don’t think that’s inconsistent with my claim that the animal (including the person) is unitary and can’t be divided into mind and body, soul and body, or spirit and body.
.
I claim that there’s a principle of complentarity or correspondence, such that even though experience and experiencer are metaphysically primary--nonetheless, in the physical story, the experiencer is the body, the animal, part of the physical world that is the setting for the life-experience possibility-story. It can be discussed either way. I mean, how could it not be, if the experience-story is to be consistent?
.
With respect to the “physical story” (the account in terms of the physical world), I’ve defined “experience” as a purposefully-responsive device’s surroundings & events, in the context of that purposefully-defined device’s built-in purposes (“Will”), with any acquired modifications.
.
That different description of experience, from a different point-of-view, the “physical story” point of view, isn’t inconsistent with taking experience as metaphysically primary.
.
Soul, Consciousness, Mind or Sprit could just be another word for Experiencer, in which case I don’t disagree with those terms.
.
So is it reasonable to suggest that the Soul, Conscious or Spirit that you’ve both referred to could just be another word for Experiencer?
.
The purposefully responsive device (animal, in our case) that we are, and our surroundings, are the possibility-world that is the setting for our life-experience possibility-story. But that experience is metaphysically primary. Or it could be said that we, the experiencer, are primary…as that animal. The animal and its experience are metaphysically prior to its surroundings, a possibility-world, that (in the physical story) produced it, and of which it’s made.
.
I’ve never understood what Buddhist metaphysics was saying, and evidently there are many mutually-contradictory versions. For example I don’t know what it means to say that there isn’t anyone. But it’s true that there’s no one for things to happen to. We, as a purposefully-responsive device, have our hereditary and acquired preferences and purposes that we pursue. Of course that includes doing our best to protect ourselves and to last as long as possible. But if we’re doing that, and doing our best at it, then whatever else happens isn’t our fault. We’re here to do our best. That’s it. We aren’t here for things to happen to. Adverse things that “happen to us” are part of the score-keeping narrative, but our purposes are only about a whole other subject—pursuing our purposes, including self-preservation, as well as we can.
.
You find suggestions about that in various Eastern writings, about our effort, not the outcome, being what we’re about. …and about the fact that there’s a meaningful sense in which dealing with something nullifies it.
.
In fact, it’s also said on a familiar “Desiderata” wall-plaque.
.
Maybe we can learn something from simpler, manmade, purposefully-responsive devices: A mousetrap, thermometer or refrigerator light-switch doesn’t care if it goes out of commission and ceases to exist. Its job and sole concern was just to fulfill its built-in purpose while possible. It isn’t wired for an unreasonable insistence on survival.
.
Maybe it was natural-selection-adaptive for us to always have a strong wish to survive and thrive, even when it’s impossible, and our time is past—just so that we’d make ourselves survive if there turned out to be even the slightest unexpected opportunity. I suggest, and I think it’s been suggested before, that it’s sometimes better to overcome that instinctive inclination, when it’s causing unnecessary unhappiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as I’ve described elsewhere, the life-experience possibility-story and its possibility-world-setting are hypothetical systems of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
I’ve been criticized for claiming that those abstract logical facts, and the complex inter-referring systems of them that are our experience-stories and possibility-worlds, are inevitable.
.
But how could they not be? The abstract facts are just inevitably “there”, aren’t they? …at least subject to there being someone to experience them.
.
So how could those abstract facts, and complex systems of them (among the infinity of which there must inevitably be one whose events and relations match those of our physical universe), not be?
.
Unlike with MUH, I’m not saying that such a possibility-world has relevance or meaningful existence without observers/experiencers. I’ve said that Experience and Experiencer are primary.
.
So, nothing that I’m claiming conflicts with what you’ve said about Spirit, Soul, Mind, Consciousness.
.
I’ve been saying that all of it is an inevitable system of inter-referring inevitable logical relational facts about hypotheticals. But I’ve probably overstated that case a bit, by making it sound as if logical if-then facts about hypotheticals are metaphysically fundamental and primary.
.
But of course the physical world--a logical-system--and the abstract logical facts of which it consists, wouldn’t mean anything without observers, experiencers. Some say that’s even true of abstract logical facts and other abstract objects, and that statement makes sense to me. They “are”, as part of our experience.
.
So we’re really the center of our whole life-experience possibility-story and its setting. It’s centered on, and about, our experience. …as a system consistent with our experience. With no one to notice those logical facts and other abstract objects, they wouldn’t have meaning. That’s a familiar position, of course. What would it mean to say that there could be a universe or a logical system without anyone to experience it?
.
But even though we and our experience are primary, and though we’re the “why” of our physical world, I like it that the “how” isn’t in question. The “how” needn’t be asked, because the experience-story and its possibility-world are inevitable complex logical systems, whose existence (at least subject to there being experiencers) doesn’t need any explanation..
.
Maybe that’s why Nisargadatta once said that we didn’t create our world, but we’re the reason for its meaning and relevance.
.
We’re the “why” of our life-experience story, but it and its possibility-world, as a system of inevitable logical facts, doesn’t need a “how” (or is it’s its own “how”) .
.
So I’m suggesting that the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing is consistent with your statements, and also doesn’t leave any “how” questions.
.
So I claim that there’s knowable inevitable metaphysics, and that definite things can be said, with certainty, about metaphysics.
.
That’s just metaphysics though. I don’t agree with Tegmark that such a metaphysics is an explanation of Reality. Physics and metaphysics are only each about a limited aspect, domain or subset of Reality.
.
Regarding what you mentioned about God and justice—I don’t use the word justice, but many feel that there’s goodness in what is, and a reason for gratitude, and there’s a feeling that there’s good intent behind the goodness of what is.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Anyway, when I said that we never experience Nothing, I wasn't talking about experiencing the fact of some little bit of nothing somewhere (even if there were such). I was talking about experiencing only nothing. I meant that we never experience the time after death, at which the body has entirely shut down, and doesn't support any experience.

As I was saying, only our survivors experience that time. There's no such thing as "oblivion". There's a concept about it, but we never experience it.

The natural logarithm of 2 is only an abstract object, but we use it. Oblivion is in a whole different class. Not only do we never reach it, but we never experience it in any manner.

Michael Ossipoff

So, if I hold nothing in my hand, I can not expererience it at the same time, is that what you say? — Vajk

For one thing, you'd have air in your hands.

Anyway:

Strictly speaking, "empty" space isn't really empty, and isn't nothing. It's full of virtual particles coming into existence briefly, and then disappearing.

Those virtual particles have been experimentally-detected. Their pressure has been measured.

Aside from all that, when we say, "Could there have been Nothing?", we don't mean "Could there have been local places where there's nothing?" We mean "Could there have been Nothing, and only Nothing?"

Michael Ossipoff

That's true. I was a bit careless with my words. What I meant is that Nothing is the subject of a concept.

Of course, as you said, a concept is something, and so it can't be said that Nothing is a concept.

Michael Ossipoff

NOTHING is nonexistence. Nonexistence can't be experienced. A concept, on the other hand, can be experienced - thought of, manipulated, etc. So, NOTHING isn't a concept. However, we do have a concept of NOTHING. — TheMadFool

I've already discussed Materialism's brute-fact problem.

When there's a metaphysics that doesn't have an assumption or a brute-fact, then a brute-fact amounts to a disqualification.

When there's an inevitable metaphysics, then a metaphysics that just adds unfalsifiable assumptions is superfluous, and disqualified for all meaningful intents and purposes.

Michael Ossipoff

I couldn't have summed-up the Atheist Materialist world view, and its conclusions and consequences any better than that.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't subscribe to complete skepticism, but a healthy skepticism. — Sam26

Sure, I only meant complete skepticism with regard to metaphysics.

...complete skepticism about metaphysical assumptions, and any notion that metaphysics applies to Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

That's absolutely the right attitude.Complete skepticism, and willingness to listen to refutations of our claims.

Michael Ossipoff

You do not think, that there is a connection between Socrates and nothing/everything? — Vajk

I have to admit that I don't know what he said about that matter.

But it probably doesn't refute the statement that no one ever experiences Nothing. No one quite arrives at nothing. So Nothing is a concept instead of an experience.

Michael Ossipoff

Why is that, what do You think?
Is it because You do not see my points — Vajk

Yes. But I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm only saying that we're talking about different subjects.

or is it because there is nothing to see?

I don't know, Philosophy allows so much verbal scope that it's easy for people to talk past eachother in a philosophical discussion. Too often, we're talking really about different subjects, and what i say doesn't apply to what you said, and vice-versa. That happens all the time in philosophy, and is the reason why there's so much disagreement. ...and always so much unlimited room for disagreement.

But it prevents us from reaching agreements. Professional academic philosophers love that, of course, it provides them with endless scope to continue publishing. You know, "Publish or Perish".

I'm willing to listen to and answer any objection(s) to my metaphysical proposal, or other metaphysical or ontological statements.

Michael Ossipoff

So you saying that Socrates wasn‘t anyone, then who was he? — Vajk

I must admit that i don't know what the matter of whether Socrates was anyone has to do with the matter of whether Nothing is a concept or is ever anyone's experience.

Michael Ossipoff










.

Maybe metaphysical disagreement is often about believing different premises. But I don't think that fully explains it.

My metaphysics, (at least a version of) Eliminative Ontic Structural Anti-Realism (EOSAR) has, as its premise merely that there are abstract logical facts, and systems of inter-referring abstract logical facts. ...and that the "reality or existence" of each of those systems, in is own local inter-referring context, isn't in question, and isn't subject some global permission that there can be abstract facts.

So sometimes we can agree on a premise and logic, but still disagree. I think it's because philosophy allows unlimited verbal scope for talking past eachtoher. ...talking actually about different subjects (philosophers can make up as many as they want to), but nevertheless fallaciously claiming that what we've said has bearing on what the other person has said.

Michael Ossipoff

You may be sure that, when AI is well developed and used for military use, and for control of a population, that AI won't be designed for compassion, empathy or altruism.

Maybe with a little luck, that time won't occur during out lifetimes.


With regard to AI, that's really our best hope.

Michael Ossipoff

Romer didn't initially know or assume that light takes time to reach us. That was his conclusion when he found that the duration between successive eclipse-beginnings was different when the Earth is moving toward, instead of away from, Jupiter.

After he noticed that, then yes, he interpreted it as meaning that light propagates at a finite speed and takes time to reach us. Then, by a very laborious but valid process, he calculated the light-speed that is consistent with his observations.

So yes, as you said, he assumed the finite propagation-speed as the explanation for the differing observed duration between successive eclipse-beginnings.

Your point is that there could be a different physical theory to explain the observation. Sure, of course there can always be a different physical theory.

So, (at least) two theories that could be consistent with the observations:

1, Light propagates at a finite speed.

2 Light propagates at infinite speed, and our perception of two distinct objects as distinct from each other depends on the distance between us and those objects. The farther the objects are the longer it takes for moving objects to appear distinct to us. The closer they are, the easier it is.

But William of Ockham, in the lale 1200s or early 1300s, pointed out that, when there are two rival theories to explain an observation, the simpler one is preferable, and maybe even more likely to be the correct one.

Your alternative theory says that the distinct appearance of two objects as distinct is something that propagates at finite speed, and that the propagation of that observed-distinctness is some separate phenomenon, separate from light's propagation-rate. ...and that that happens in addition to light's propagation at an infinite speed.

It was already known that light propagates (at finite or infinite speed), and you're adding an additional phenomenon that also propagates--the ability of objects to appear distinct to us.

Your theory is more complicated than Roemer's, and requires an additional assumption, an additional physical property or fact that propagates. You're assuming something ,else to be going on, more than the propagation of light.

So Roemer's explanation is the simpler one.

Whether light was regarded as a wave or a particle, no waves or objects were known to move at infinite speed, and so it wouldn't have been surprising to Roemer when he got observational results consistent a finite light-speed.

But yes, all physical theories are just theories, and eventually one is better confirmed and supported than its rivals. So yes, Roemer couldn't have known for sure that some more complicated theory didn't obtain.

That has often been the case in physics. Newton had no way of knowing that the more complicated theories of relativity or quantum mechanics obtained. But it turned out that there were more ultimate and more complicated laws of motion, mechanics kinematics and dynamics that were different from what Newton proposed.

So the simple theory isn't always the one that's right. But often it is, and in Roemer's case, that happened to be so.

Michael Ossipoff

But NOTHING isn't a concept. — TheMadFool

What else is it? It isn't ever anyone's experience.

But the if-then facts that I'm talking about are concepts too, meaning that each universe, such as ours, consisting of an inter-referring system of them is conceptual too.

Michael Ossipoff

Wait, I think I might know what Hachem's objection is.

If I'm right, the Hachem was saying something that was true, though he wasn't right about Roemer getting it wrong. Roemer didn't get it wrong. Roemer's method was valid. But there was more to it than we were talking about.

Hachem said that Roemer was assuming a value for the speed of light, in order to find the speed of light.. That's true. Roemer's determination required an initial assumption of what the answer might be.

But no, that doesn't mean that Roemer used circular reasoning.

I was talking about, the fact that, as measured and calculated by Roemer, the speed of light is determinable from the duration between moon-eclipse beginnings when the Earth is moving toward Jupiter, and when the Earth is moving away from Jupiter. I wasn't getting into details of the actual mathematical technique, which involved more than I spoke of.

In algebra courses, and in the mathematical problems that people are most used to, the answer is in the form of a formula, or a completed calculation. Even when it's necessary to solve a system of linear equations, and a lengthy procedure needed, it's still a completed calculation. Disregarding any lack of precision of your calculator, the answer is exact, and is completely arrived at after a relatively short finite calculation.

That's referred to as an answer "in closed form". in terms of numbers and elementary functions (like the sine, cosine, log, etc. on a scientific calculator).

But that isn't possible for all mathematical problems.

In fact, for most problems with any complexity the situation is that there's an answer, but it isn't in closed form in terms of numbers and elementary functions. It isn't completely arrived at by a finite amount of calculation, as is the case with simpler problems.

Such problems require some sort of step-by-step numerical solution, a step-by-step iterative solution.

Because such problems are so common in physics, engineering and mathematics, those numerical solutions are a much-studied and discussed topic in mathematics.

What are some examples of both kinds of problems?--

Well, for the area of a circle, a formula can be derived, pi * R squared. And then, you can solve that formula for any of its variables in terms of the others.

An example of a relatively simple physics calculation is Force = Mass * Acceleration. If you know all but one of those quantities but one, then you can solve for the one that you don't know.

Likewise for Galileo's formulas for accelerated motion--formulas that relate acceleration, initial position, initial speed, and the object's speed and position at any subsequent time. If there's just one of those quantities whose value you don't know, then you can solve for it in terms of the other values.

An example of a problem solvable only iteratively, is a planet's position in its orbit at any time. If I remember correctly, when you solve the differential equations for a planetary orbit, as a two-body problem (no perturbations), you can get an exact solution, in closed form with regard to numbers and elementary functions, for the time at which the planet will reach a particular place in its orbit. But if you want to know where the planet will be at a particular time, the formula doesn't have a closed-form solution for that. You can only get an iterative numerical solution for where the planet will be at a certain time.

There are lots of map projections for which, if you know a latitude-longitude position you can calculate where that point will be on the map. You can transform from Lat/Lon to X/Y. And you can also transform from X/Y to Lat/Lon. ...and get an answer in closed form.

But there also a lot of map projections for which a closed-form solution is avalable only for [/i]one[/i] of those transformations, in one direction. If you want to transform in the other direction, you need to solve an equation by a step-by-step iterative method, based on an initial assumption.

And that's just talking about solving equations. Step-by-step methods are also needed for most complicated integrals and differential equations too.

When solving such an equation, you start with a first guess about the answer, and, from that, an iterative method gives you a better approximate answer. Repeating the iteration, you can get as close as you want to the correct solution.

As I said, there are well-known efficient methods for such problems. Several of those methods were well-known before Roemer's time.

So, given the duration between eclipse-beginnings, when the Earth is moving toward Jupiter,and when the Earth is moving away from Jupiter, it's possible to get an accurate answer for the speed of light. ...an answer as accurate as you want, by an iterative method that must start with an estimate of the answer.

So yes, Roemer had to start with an estimate of the answer that he sought. But the subsequent iterative procedure brought him as close as desired to the correct answer. (...with the understanding that he knew that his accuracy was limited by his clock's accuracy.)

And I'll just repeat that, not only did Roemer's llght-speed determination method need an iterative solution, but even the calculations of the positions of Earth and Jupiter any some particular time (something needed in Roemer's determination) needed an iterative solution too.

So a lot of iteration was needed. No one said that it was an easy solution, especially in those pre-computer days.

But Roemer's principle was valid, and his answer would have been completely accurate if his instruments were completely accurate.

(disregarding the round-off error that happens in big iterative calclulations)

Michael Ossipoff

You are of course free to bid 0, but there's a chance your bid will not be taken seriously. — Srap Tasmaner

You mean "Too good to be true"?

Sometimes something that's too good to be true is true anyway.

Do you not agree that my proposal doesn't make any assumptions or posit any brute-facts?

I suggest that a person's life is one of infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, and that our physical world, the setting for that story, is one of infinitely-many possibility-worlds.

such a story consists of a hypothetical system of inter-referring abstract logical facts, if-then facts, about hypotheticals.

The whole thing is hypothetical.

It's inevitable, because the abstract logical facts of which it's composed are inevitable.

Among the infinity of such systems, it's inevitable that there's one that has the same events and relations as our world. There's no reason to believe that our world is other than that.

You could still believe that our universe is, additionally, superfluously, something more than that. But that would be an unfalsifiable, unnecessary brute-fact.

This was all said by Michael Faraday in 1844, except that he was talking about a possibility-world, instead of a life-experience possibility-story.

I personally feel that the individual-experience point-of-view makes more sense than the universe-wide 3rd person objective point-of-view.

Michael Ossipoff




T

A baseball breaks a window because the ball has enough kinetic energy to push/bend the glass far enough to separate its silicon-dioxide molecules enough to break the bond between them.

(Strictly speaking, window glass, usually soda-glass, has other mineral compounds mixed with the predominant silicon-dioxide, to achieve the glass state at a lower temperature, lower melting-point, and better workability).

Michael Ossipoff

The most important fact about death is no one really knows what happens during and after death.

So, all talk of an after-life, or not, is mere speculation.

That said, we can make some reasoned guesses on the matter.

If we look at death, as objectively as possible, restricted to only the observable, it appears death is a full-stop to existence.
— TheMadFool

Of course, from the point-of-view of your survivors.

From your own point of view, of course there's no such thing as "oblivion". You never reach or experience the time when you're completely shut down and have no experience. How could you experience a time when you have no experience? You never reach "oblivion".

"Oblivion" is a myth.

That's to say there's no soul

There's no soul, "Mind" or Consciousness separate from the body.

, and no after-life.

Well, let's not jump to conclusions. You never reach "nothing".

In short, science doesn't seem to support the existence of a soul

Science isn't helpful outside its legitimate range of applicability. But yes, there isn't a soul.

which is necessary for an after-life to make sense.

Doesn't follow. As I said, there's no such thing as oblivion, because of course you never experience the time after your experience has completely shut down.

It can be argued that the soul, being immaterial, can't be scientifically examined like, for instance, a rock.

Only the physical world can be scientifically-examined. There's a tendency to want to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability, resulting in a Science-Worship religion.

Personally, I'm confused. On one hand we have sleep - which, to me, is what's death-like

As Shakespeare noted, in sleep we dream. We don't remember most of our dreams (only those that are close to when we wake up), but we nevertheless experience them. In dreams, we have experience, but don't know about our waking life, and usually believe in the dream-reality.

...all suggesting that we should be cautious about concluding anything about what death is like.

I'm undecided on the matter. Perhaps one has to die first and find out for oneself.

After the initial experiences described in NDE reports, you'll be too unconscious to know that you've found out.

We can all agree that dying is like going to sleep. But that doesn't tell us much in detail. But there's nothing wrong with going to sleep. It happens daily.

But, if you want to discuss what the details might be like--

Eastern traditions have suggested, and it seems metaphysically-supported, reincarnation for most people, and eventually, after many lives, upon thorough life-completion, an end of lives, and then a preference for and reaching of Tiimelessness.

Michael Ossipoff

I am really disappointed in your analytic insight. The discussion is not about the speed of light, nor about astronomy. It is about the historical validity of Rømer's argumentation. — Hachem

Oh, the discussion is most definitely about the validity of Roemmer's method for determinig the speed of light. That's what Roemer's "argumentation" was about. :D

You've rambled at great length, but haven't told of anything wrong with Roemer's "argumentation" I told you what Roemer's "argumetation" was. You said he'd circularly pre-assumed his conclusion. I pointed out that his measurement and determination neither implied nor needed any such presumption.

So then you retreated to your vague statement that Roemer's "argumentation" was wrong. ...in ways that you haven't coherently, intelligibly disclosed :D

Trying to fault my logic through facts is really irrelevant

:D

Forgive me for bothering you with mere facts

When you've made up your mind, what do facts matter?

I am not judging facts, I am judging an argumentation.

[/quote]

Judge away.

You haven't decipherably told what was wrong with Roemer's "argumentation".

...except that several times you tried to, and your objections were answered. So you're continuing to evasively dance around your failure to support your claim that you're right and everyone else, including all the astronomers and physicists, are wrong..

Anyway, as I said, I've devoted more than enough time to be polite enough to not ignore you, and to try to explain this subject to you. Discussion concluded.

Over and out.

Michael Ossipoff

That is where our interpretations diverge. I say that his idea was not the only possibility, and he never gave any reason why it should be. — Hachem

You haven't given a an alternative interpretation of Roemer's results. ...at least not one with a decipherable meaning.

I didn't call you names. I just said that maybe you should reconsider whether you're right and all the astronomers and physicists are wrong.

If you're done, at least that's an improvement.

It would have been easier to just ignore you. But I didn't want to insult you in that manner. I wanted to be polite enough to take you seriously, enough to answer you, to try to explain the subject to you.

It turns out that you didn't deserve that politeness, respect or effort.

So yes, let's agree to disagree on whether you're right and all the astronomers and physicists are wrong.

Michael Ossipoff

, if you do not doubt an instant that when you see the event happening, it is happening not at that moment but because light needs time to reach you and make you see it. Then you have already assumed that which you wanted to prove, and the only thing that rests is count the seconds or the minutes between one event and the other. — Hachem

No, Roemer didn't necessarily assume that light had a finite speed. His experiment depended on no such assumption and implied no such assumption.

Roemer's measurement could have yielded an infinite speed of light. ...which would have told Roemer that either light's speed is infinite, maybe just too high to be measured by Roemer's method. But Roemer's measurements indicated a finite speed of light, and that measured speed was reasonably accurate.

In short--Roemer didn't assume, and his experiment didn't depend on an assumption of, a finite speed of light. But that's what it found.

If light-speed were infinite, the observed times between eclipse-beginnings would have been unchanged.

Before Roemer, there'd been no measurement to indicate that. Galileo had tried to measure light's speed, but, light was too fast for its speed to be measured by Galileo's method. From Galileo's measurement, either light's speed was infinite, or it was too fast to be measured by Galileo's method.

Roemer's measurements could have likewise indicated an infinite light-speed, which would have indicated that light's speed is infinite, or too fast for Roemer's method to measure.

So, no--Roemer didn't just determine what he'd assumed. He didn't assume a finite light-speed. But he found one.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, NOTHING forms the backdrop to everything. A physical object occupies the space that was NOTHING. An idea forms to occupy what was once a void/NOTHING. Tabula rasa? — TheMadFool

Abstract objects were always there, and didn't at some time appear to occupy what was once nothing.

An inter-referring systems of abstract facts doesn't need a backdrop, or a medium in which to be, or some sort of global or objective reality.

No one ever experiences "nothing", so the experience-primary point of view doesn't support the notion of it.

Michael Ossipoff

Roemer's main source of inaccuracy was the clocks of his day. I've said that several times already.

No one's claiming that Roemer's determination was dead-on accurate. He estimated 140,000 mi/sec. That estimate was low.

But it was pretty good anyway, especially when you remember that, before Roemer, the speed of light was completely unknown.

Is that your whole point, that Roemer didn't have the instrumentation to make a highly accurate determination? But you've been claiming that Roemer was wrong in principle.

...and your attempted justifications of that claim have been completely vague and without meaning. It isn't possible to answer your argument, because it isn't saying anything that means anything.

Look, in philosophy, the academics can be full of sh_ _, and I claim that they are.

But in the physical sciences, like astronomy, how likely is it that Roemer, an astronomer, and all the later astronomers and physicists, agree that Roemer's light-speed determination method is right in principle, but that you know better than all astronomers and physicists?

When you believe that you're right, and all the astronomers and physicists are wrong, about a matter of astronomy and physics, then could it be that you might want to reconsider your belief?

You'd be able to understand my description of Roemer's method, but you won't look past your pre-formed belief that you have the truth, and all the astronomers and physicists are wrong.

Michael Ossipoff

There couldn't have been nothing, because there inevitably are abstract objects, including abstract facts.

Someone could say that there are only abstract facts if there's someone to know them. Sure, and that experience and experiencer are part of any hypothetical system of abstract facts.

That's one reason why I suggest that experience is primary. It would seem meaningless to speak of a world, hypothetical or otherwise, without an experiencer of it.

I wouldn't call those hypothetical abstract systems "nothing", if they're all that metaphysically is.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't mean to imply that non-worldly consequences are only a possible deterrent. I think they're real.

Of course our rulers know what they're doing, at the material level, and that's why they'll always remain on top.

But isn't it obvious that, more fundamentally, they don't know what they're doing?

Michael Ossipoff

I somehow lost the last paragraph of your post.

The fear of Hell, or goal of Heaven might deter some people from their worst. If so, then it's doing some good.

It doesn't seem to be working very well, though, does it.

Michael Ossipoff

The class that finds a way to make money off of the lower classes without having to put in as much effort, or with inequitable trades themselves are only able to pull it off because they actually do tend to be more intelligent, — Wosret

Like Dubya? Or Dan Quayle?

Maybe it just helps to be born in a rich family.

But yes, of course there's an evolutionarily-hereditary sheep-class, and an evolutionarily-hereditary herding-class.

Maybe you've noticed how the suckers are a perfect fit to their scammers. It's like the fit of a glove to a hand.

It's eerily reminiscent of Huxley's Brave New World, except that of course there's nothing new about it
The only difference is that, instead of being done with drugs, it happened via evolution.

Evidently that herders/sheep arrangement must have been adaptive at some time in our prehistory.

Anyone who thinks they can achieve change for the better is up against a million years of evolution.

As I often say:

P.T. Barnum pointed out that there's a sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

Those two great social scientists have explained why societal affairs are the way the are, and always will be.

...or really good people people.

Really good people? Well that's reassuring, that the it's being done by really good people.

You could have fooled me.

Most everyone would do it if they could, and don't refrain out of higher principles, but inability.

Sure, probably so.

Michael Ossipoff

Obviously, as we all know, there are people who live in exactly that way. They tend to rise to the top, of course.

Why shouldn't you be like that?

Well, some people just aren't like that. I'm not like that, and I don't need a reason.

Ironically, many, most or nearly all of the people who behave in that manner claim to be devout Christians.

.But, if someone needs a reason, then howabout the fact (or call it a "claim" if you prefer) that this physical world and this brief worldly life aren't everything. Are you sure that anyone really, ultimately gets away with what they do?

Maybe that consideration does deter some people from doing their worst Obviously there are lot of people who aren't being deterred. Are a lot of professed Christians really closet Atheist Materialists?

Michael Ossipoff

I guess if one theory is a little simpler than another theory, and needs just a few fewer assumptions, then that makes it a little more acceptable more, plausible, appealing, and more likely to be true..

But what if we're comparing a metaphysics (like Materialism) that needs an assumption, a big brazen arrogant brute-fact, vs a metaphysics that doesn't need or use any assumptions or brute-fact at all?

...one that doesn't need any assumptions because it's inevitable?

I've been proposing such a metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

As I've said before, each life-experience possibility-story, as a logical system of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals, is real in its own local inter-referring context,and needn't be real or existent in any other context. ...needn't have any other context or medium in which to be real or existent.

Such logical systems are isolated from and independent of eachother**, and independent of any global context or medium.

**except that, inevitably, among that infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, some are set in a common possibility-world.

Tegmark's MUH is described from the universe-wide, objective 3rd-person point-of-view, and that's one of my disagreements with it. Obviously, he describes the same possibility-worlds, but our own experience is what we genuinely know, and anything we know about this physical world, we know via our experience. ...direct physical perceptions, or our experience of someone reporting something to us.

Michael Ossipoff

Going by idealism, and keeping it consistent, there’s no difference among you and my experiences of you. (On a non-idealist account it’s impossible for me to experience your self-awareness, since then I’d be you instead.) You = my experiences of you. But I’m not omniscient, since otherwise I’d know that I were. I don’t have to experience someone else’s self-awareness to take it’s independent existence for granted, I don’t have to become the Moon to take it’s independent existence for granted — and I learn of both much the same way, by interaction, observation, coherence, whatever. Attempting to escape solipsism by declaring that others also are selves would be textbook special pleading. — jorndoe

I've never understood that problem about "other minds".

I can't speak for Materialism, which has other, prohibitively serious, problems anyway.

But,as an Idealist, I don't understand what the problem is.

Obviously, your life-experience possibility-story's setting, the possibility-world in which you live, must include a species to which you belong, and other members of that species.

That possibility-world is implied by, and part of, your life-experience possibility-story. In that sense, it's real for you. It's a world in which there are other people, who are persons like you.

No surprise there.

Of course, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one about the life-experience of each of those other individuals, and in that same possibility-world.

But you needn't theorize about that. Those other experience-stories are inaccessibly-distant from your own experience.

What you do know about is the fact that, in the possibility-world in which you reside, there are other animals, like you, including other animals of your own species, who are essentially just like you.

...essentially just like you in terms of their feelings too

It's a fallacy to try to separate, dissect, "Mind" or "Consciousness" from body, to make the unnecessary fallacious "Hard Problem Of Consciousness". There's just the animal, indivisible.

An animal is a purposefully-responsive device, designed by natural-selection.

Its surroundings, in the context of the purposes built into its purposeful response to those surroundings, are its experience.

Where there's a live body, there's experience, mind, and feelings.

So of course those other animals, including those of your species, have experience and feelings, just as you do.

...even though you don't directly feel their feelings or directly experience their experience.

...even though all that you can know about your surroundings is via your experience.

...and even though your experience is metaphysically primary, in your metaphysical reality.

Michael Ossipoff

On this point, I am afraid, you have not changed my mind. — Hachem

I did my best.

I'll just suggest that you re-read my description of Roemer's determination method, from a fresh perspective, instead of in terms of beliefs that you've previously formed regarding what Roemer did.

When you're convinced that you already know, you're cheating yourself out of the opportunity to find out.

Other than that, there's nothing that I can say that would help.

As I said, i did my best.

Michael Ossipoff

If I understand you right, it is possible and legitimate to compare times at different locations? That 5 o'clock at location A on the orbit path, is the same as 5 o'clock (or another time) at location B? — Hachem

By his clock and calendar, and Newton's solution for planetary orbits, Roemer could calculate the Earth's position, and Jupiter's position, at each of the 4 observation-times...and thereby the distances between Earth and Jupiter at those times.

Roemer most likely would prefer to make his observations when Jupiter is at or near the meridian at his longitude. But of course it would have to also be times at which the sky is dark enough to observe Jupiter's moons.

The speed of the ground that Roemer stood on, with respect to the Earth's center, is about 100 times less than the Earth's orbital speed. The component of Roemer's ground's speed toward or away from Jupiter would be even less.

Roemer could have ignored the position of his ground, with respect to the Earth's center, due to Earth-rotation,.because his ground's rotational speed is only about 1/100 of the Earth's orbital speed, and his clock-inaccuracy was limiting his result-accuracy anyway.

It's common to disregard small errors when there are much bigger ones.

Or he could have taken into account the position of his ground with respect to the Earth's center. Maybes he did. ...unless he was sure that that error was swamped by the error caused by his clock's inaccuracy.

In either case, there isn't any error in principle.

Michael Ossipoff