There needn't be a "purpose".

Maybe there are things that you like or would like.

Obviously you should act ethically, or at least avoid acting unethically. Maybe there are valid commitments to others. All of that goes without saying.

Other than the above, what purpose is needed or expected?

Michael Ossipoff

"The separate “consciousness” is Spiritualist fiction." — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think my take presumed or implied anything supernatural or spiritual in particular.

...or made-up?

Then that's where we can agree to disagree.

At least I don't think there's any requirement to invoke such things

Exactly my point.

Michael Ossipoff

Certainly some people, due their own lost-soul needs, want or need to make happiness into a zero-sum game. Some people's happiness depends on harming others. There's no reason to believe that that won't always be so, due to our aggressive-monkey heritage.

Accept it as fact, but that doesn't mean we have to be proud of it.

Michael Ossipoff

Your question is based on a not-valid metaphysical assumption.

Your life is a life-experience possibility-story There are infinitely-many such stories, encompassing all non-self-contradictory life stories.

Why are you in the life that you're in? (including as a member of the species that you belong to)?

Answer: Because, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one about the person you are.

It wasn't a random choice. This is the life-story that's about the person that you are. It would be meaningless to ask why you aren't someone else (of whatever species).

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

Dice are probabilistic and random. Random doesn’t mean that all outcomes are equally probable.

You replied:

Why are they probabilistic and random? The statistical definition of random is that they are equally probable.

Yes. In that sense, a perfect die is completely random, because all of the outcome-numbers from 1 to 6 are equally probably.

But a pair of dice is probabilistic too, because, if the outcomes consist of the number of pips showing when the dice come to rest, then those outcomes have different probabilities.

That was what I meant.

In my opinion there is no such thing as random.

A perfect die would be random. The best dice, the ones used in casinos, closely approach that ideal.

I think random is used to explain situations in which humans can't evaluate the probabilities of something.

Sure, but also to describe situations in which the outomes really are equiprobable, or nearly so.

And "random" is reasonably used for devices and situations in which the outcome is probabilistic instead of deterministic. Such devices and situations are reasonably said to have a random element.

I believe that everything in the known universe exists only as a probabilities. Our choices and thoughts.

Our choices and thoughts might seem that way because we don't have detailed information about what determines them.

But often we do. Often we do know why we make the choices that we make. That's so, often enough, that I suggest that the determinism of our choices is obvious, even from our own point of view.

The coin that is flipped in a bet. No choices or randomness. Just probabilities playing out based on original configurations.

In the case of a flipped-coin, the two outcomes are genuinely equiprobable. We hear mention of a "fair-coin". Have you ever seen or heard of a coin that isn't a "fair-coin"? ...unless it's a two-headed or two-tailed coin.

...equiprobable because it's entirely impossible for anyone to control the outcome of a reasonably high coin-flip.

Michael Ossipoff

You can't build computers based upon a random roll like a die. You can build one based upon Schrodinger's equations. There is a big difference. — Rich

Dice are known as a "randomizing-device", one among many.

There isn't a very "big difference" between randomizing-devices. They all achieve the same thing.

Computers commonly use pseudorandom algorithms, because that doesn't require special hardware, though, as you may know, pseudorandom algorithms aren't reliably random.

You could say that about some genuine randomizing-devices too. I once statistically-tested an inexpensive die, and found the expected statistically-significant departures from randomness, the departures that one would expect due to the die's asymmetric mass-distribution.

But, for the purpose of games, even gambling, that die would be adequate. Most sidewalk craps-games probably use such dice, and no one has a problem with their nonrandomness.

Of course casino dice have "pips" (spots) consisting of, filled with, the same material (or at least an equally-dense material) as the rest of the die, though the pips are dyed a different color. That avoids the gross departures from randomness that I measured.

By the way, a perfect die is completely random, with all of its final-orientation outcomes being equally likely. But, even with the best pair of dice, the game-relevant outcomes aren't equally likely. Casino craps, sidewalk-craps, and most boardgames are based on dice-outcomes consisting of the the total number of pips showing when two dice are thrown. Those outcomes are not equally likely, even with the best dice. A seven is much more likely than a two or a twelve.

As far as randomness in determinism, it's quite your invention.

It can be heard as a contradiction in terms. That's why I said that it wasn't a good way to say what I meant.

Here's what I meant:

Though randomness, any degree of it, is the opposite of pre-determination...

Suppose that quantum-effects (or something else) add some randomness to your choices. In that case, that random effect is making you act contrary to how you'd have wanted to act before that randomizing effect. It will, more often than not, make you act contrary to your longterm goals, purposes and principles. ...and produce a result that you later don't like.

It means that, to some extent, your actions are being determined for you, instead of by you..

That was what I meant. Sure, "deterministic" wasn't the right word, because "deterministic" implies pre-determined.

Just one random event pretty much destroys all of determinism

Incorrect. Not if the randomizing influence only has a small role, &/or only happens occasionally, or in limited choice-domains.

, but keep trying. A review of Calvinism, which is in total agreement with your philosophy is one avenue for further explanation. Just, whenever they use the word God, you should use the Laws of Nature.

Keep talking like the troll that you are, Rich.

...a troll who believes that he's controlled by a disembodied, distributed Rupert-Sheldrake holographic quantum Mind-repository.

Michael Ossipoff

Rich is unable to disagree politely.

That's particularly inadvisable, for someone who believes that he's controlled by a disembodied, distributed, Rupert-Sheldrake holographic quantum Mind-repository.

Michael Ossipoff

Someone here quoted Schopenhauer as saying:

"We can do what we will, but we can't will what we will."

He was right.

And, because the determinism of our choices is obvious, even from our own point of view, I'd suggest that the answer to the free-will question is "No free will".

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

Quantum randomness wouldn't achieve free-will. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You said:

There is no quantum randomness. It is probabilistic. If it was random, then the Schrodinger equation would be worthless.

Dice are probabilistic and random. Random doesn’t mean that all outcomes are equally probable.
.
Anyway, I didn’t introduce the phrase “quantum randomness”.

.

I have no idea what is free will. Humans have a choice in the direction of action they would like to try to take.

.
…without being able to choose what they would like.

.

I won't try to understand the rest: random determinism??

.
Ok, it wouldn’t strictly be pure determinism. But I made it clear that I was talking about determinism modified by only a very slight and limited degree of randomization, not enough to countermand the important feelings, goals, purposes or needs.
.
Thanks for your advice. But save it, troll.
.
And that advice comes from someone who believes that he’s controlled by a disembodied, distributed Rupert-Sheldrake holographic quantum Mind-Repository.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I'm sure you've heard this answer before, but it's true:

Quantum randomness wouldn't achieve free-will. It merely would mess-up, make less effective, your choices, with regard to your more basic unchanging purposes and needs.

But if, by whatever reason, randomness occurs to some small extent, to some small degree that doesn't countermand basic important goals, needs and purposes, some randomness might not be a bad thing.

But it just means that the determinism is partly determined randomly. It wouldn't mean that there isn't determinism.

You still can't will what to will. You still can't want or not want something because you want to want or not want it.

As for "free-will", our choices are obviously deterministic, even from our own point of view. ...meaning that there isn't free will.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Yes, but you were still speaking of Mind and body as separate and different, whereas i claim that that is an artificial dissection of the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A person has a consciousness and a brain. That is a reasonable division of a person into 2 seperate parts.

.
“Division”, yes. “Reasonable”, no.
.
The separate “consciousness” is Spiritualist fiction.
.
We aren’t a consciousness and a brain. We’re an animal.
.
You’re making it unnecessarily Dualist-complicated. Dualist-elaborate.
.

Your position I take it is that those two parts are both composed of the same matter, the same substance.

.
No. There aren’t two parts.
.
“Two parts” is Dualism. I disagree with Dualism.
.
What you’re calling “two parts” is one thing: The animal.
.
You insist on artificially, unnecessarily, dissecting the animal into two parts, one of which is Spiritualist fiction.
.

A reasonable response to that is "who cares"?

.
Dualists.
.
Evidently they care to make up that 2nd fictitious part.
.

If there are 2 parts composed of the same substance…

.
There aren’t.
.
There aren’t 2 parts.
.
One of those supposed parts is fiction.
.

, the question still remains of how do you account for such divergent behaviors from the same substance, so much so that we can't even accurately observe or measure the consciousness phenomena but we can the brain phenomena.

.
Your Scientists (capitalized because they’re an object of Science-Worship) can indeed observe a brain, because it’s a physical object. They can observe all sorts of things about it. Maybe in principle someday they could observe and measure everything about it.
.
But now you want them to also be able to measure a fictitious “consciousness”?
.
You want to know why they can’t observe or measure it?
.
They can’t observe or measure it because it’s fictitious.
.
You’re expressing the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness. You want the Scientist to be able to observe and measure another animal’s 1st-person experience.
.
Why would you expect one animal to be able to experience, observe or measure another animal’s 1st-person experience???
.
…no matter how much Scientific instrumentation the Scientist has.
.
Scientificists want everything to be the province of Science. And so they’re bothered by the fact that Scientists can’t observe and measure another animal’s 1st-person experience.
.

That is, these 2 things are significantly different…

.
…or would be, if there were 2 things.
.

, and simply making a reductionist claim (i.e. at some level they are reducible into quarks or whatever) answers nothing (especially since we really don't know what a quark is).

.
I didn’t speak of quarks.
.
We’re the animal. Period. Full-Stop.
.
You’re the one who insists on trying to dissect the animal into body and fictitious consciousness.
.
You’re the one who wants to make it complicated and elaborate.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I'd like to further reply to this post:

A physical law is a description of the physical world, one produced by human minds, it is not the physical world itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

For one thing, regarding the system of inter-referring hypotheticals that I speak of, I don't claim that it's objectively real, existent or factual..

Regarding the various "if-then"s composing it, I don't claim that any of them are objectively factual.
They have reference, applicability and relevance only in their own mutually inter-referring context.

In particular, that includes the physical laws. These are all hypotheticals. I specifically referred to physical laws as hypothetical facts. ...and as part of if-clauses of various if-then facts. ...if-then facts which, themselves, could be part of an "if" clause of another hypothetical if-then fact.

For another thing, this isn't a "Realism".

I'm not saying that the physical laws have definite form, regardless of whether we know that form yet.

It would be tempting to say that, but your life-experience possibility-story is about your experience, not external, 3rd-person objective facts, or things that you haven't encountered yet.

Physicists can tell you what, based on their experiments, seem likely to be the physical laws regarding some physical subject. ...what the best theory seems to be, in that regard. Sometimes your own experience tells you something about that too. You've gotten a direct experiential sense of F = ma, and life in a nearly uniform gravitational field. and the fact that soap helps dissolve lipids in water, giving confirmation to what we've heard about its molecule's polar and nonpolar ends making it compatible to mix with both, to make an emulsion..

If our physicists probe, investigate, test, and experiment, then they might find some theories that they favor as likely physical laws and physical structure. ...and then tell us, whereby those likely physical laws become part of our experience.

So no, I'm not saying that the physical laws exist independent of us. None of all this does, because your life-experience story is only about your experience. And this world is nothing other than part of that story.

And, as I said, the conditional, if-then, nature of facts about our physical world isn't limited to physics. I gave the example of the traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.

A world best described by conditional grammar, rather than declarative grammar.

A world of "If", rather than a world of "Is".

MIchael Ossipoff

As far as I am concerned many people consider soul great music, I'm more on the rock side of the fence. — charleton

Soul is a diverse genre. You probably like some of it, as do I.

Likewise for Rock.

Michael Ossipoff

But Plato and Aristotle proved Pythagorean Idealism wrong, a long time ago, by appealing to substance dualism, and that's how we get beyond these apparent paradoxes.

.
If you have a proof that the fully parsimonious Idealistic metaphysics that I’ve proposed (and which I call "Skepticism") is wrong, I invite you to state it.
.
You said:
.

A physical law is a description of the physical world, one produced by human minds, it is not the physical world itself.

.
Modern observations show the currently observed laws of physics operating long before there were any physicists.
.
But yes, of course your life-experience possibility-story is about experience and observation.
.
Physicists’ observations (and your own direct experience, and your experience of what physicists report) are of certain physical laws evidently applying.
.
Possibility-stories are self-consistent. The physicists and you, when examining, experimenting, observing, and testing, will find underlying facts (physical quantities and laws) that are consistent with eachother and with your other experiences and observations.
.
Humans deduce physical laws that are consistent with their observations. Humans continue to recognize a physical law if it remains consistent with observation. It’s part of your hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a system of inter-referring “if-then”s.
.
I’d said:
.

Such an if-then system can fully describe a physical world. ...and is consistent with our experiences and observations. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

See, the system describes the physical world, but don't you recognize a difference between the description and the thing described?

.
It’s enough that it describes the world that we observe, and is consistent with our experiences and observation.
.
What more would you ask of an explanation?
.
I didn’t say that a thing and its description are the same.
.
There’s no reason to believe that the objectively-existent “things” of Materialism are other than fiction.

Yes, of course because the world's things are part of our life-experience possibility-story, we must deal with them. But this is a philosophical discussion about what is.
.

How do you make this leap, to saying that the physical world is nothing more than the description?

.
What I said is that our physical world is nothing other than a system of inter-referring “if-then”s.
.
Several physicists, from Michael Faraday (1844) to Max Tegmark (currently) have been saying that the physical world is consistent with a mathematical and logical system of relation, in which there’s no reason to believe in objectively-existent “stuff”. They’re right.
.
Your physical world is nothing other than your experience—your life-experience possibility-story.
.
Why is there that story? How could there not be, among the infinity of hypothetical possibility-stories such as I’ve described. As I’ve said, that system of hypothetical “if-then”s doesn’t and needn’t exist in any context other than its own. Its elements needn’t and don’t have any applicability, meaning or existence other than in reference to eachother.
.
As for whether Materialism or Skepticism is true, let me quote something that I recently said in another topic at this forum:
.
...besides, even if Materialism were true (but it isn't), worlds consisting only of systems of inter-referring hypotheticals would still inevitably be.

...an infinity of them.

.
...meaning that, even if Materialism were true, a supposed Materialist nature of this particular physical world wouldn't change the inevitability of the infinitely-many possibility worlds

.
So, even if Materialism were true of this particular physical world, it would be superfluous and irrelevant overall.
.
In fact, it would be superfluous and irrelevant in our world too. The expected observations for Materialism and Skepticism are identical. Those two metaphysicses are observationally indistinguishable.
.
So, you can believe in Materialism if you want to, but just know that you’re believing in an unnecessary assumption and brute-fact, when you believe that the physical world and its things and stuff are objectively existent, primary, and fundamentally existent.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Yes, but you were still speaking of Mind and body as separate and different, whereas i claim that that is an artificial dissection of the animal.

So I'd say that the more accurate way to say it is: The animal has feelings and does actions determined by its predispositions and surroundings.

The body runs itself. You are the body.

Michael Ossipoff

I looked up Mars' atmospheric density, and it's only about 1% of Earth's. Wind's dynamic pressure is proportional to the air's density and the square of its speed. So Mars' 170 mph winds would only have the dynamic pressure of a 17 mph wind on Earth.

But the 170 mph sand-grains could still do erosion damage.

Michael Ossipoff

Less than 1/3, if I remember correctly. And the wind-pressure at a given windspeed is proportional to the air-density. So yes, the wind would be a lot less damaging.

Yes, it does seem a bit odd that everything, even the dragonflies, were bigger in those earlier eras.

I read that the Pterodactyls, especially the big Pteranadon, wouldn't have really been able to fly. They've suggested that Pternatadon, and maybe the other Pterodactyls, soared on a cliff-updraft to hunt fish, and then cllmbed back up to their nest, along the cliff-face.

And i've read that there was a Pterosaur even bigger than pteranadon.

Maybe that's it. The giant dragonflies were probably not bigger than some modern birds known to be able to fly.

Aerodynamicists used to say that a bumblebee couldn't fly, by their calculations, until someone figured out the various tricks that flying insects use. Like the "clap-fling" used also by pidgeons (rock-doves).

In Jurassic Park, of course the Pteranadons fly easily, but that might not be accurate. They fudge things when it suits the story. For example, I read that it's believed that the Pterosaurs were fish-eaters, but theyi're all chasing humans in Jurassic-III and jurassic-IV.

Michael Ossipoff

One thing I should have done was, I should have sent a copy of the threatening post to the company that hosts that forum.

...especially given that the threat was from one of their moderators.

I guess I was too lazy to deal with it. But one should report such things.

Michael Ossipoff

The entire physical world consists of nothing more than statements? That's an odd sort of metaphysics — Metaphysician Undercover

(I've gone through this post of mine, changing "statements" to "facts". "Facts is what I've meant when saying "statements". Replace "statements" with "facts" in my posts on this topic.)

Yes, but everything we experience or observe can be explained in that way.

Phyisical laws are if-facts that are part of if-then facts. A physical laws is an if-fact that relates some other facts called quantity-values. Together, the physical law and some of the quantity-values that it relates are the if-clause of an if-then fact. ...whose "then" clause consists of values for the other quantities that the physical law includes in its stated relation.

If-then facts involving physical laws and the quantities that they relate. The if-then facts with those as its "if" clause. Mathematical theorems whose "if" clause includes axioms and other if-facts.

Such an if-then system can fully describe a physical world. ...and is consistent with our experiences and observations.

Of course we experience the physics mostly via what physicists tell us they've found. But if-then applies to ordinary statements and observations too:

Say I tell you that there's a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine. That's equivalent to telling you that if you go to 34th & Vine, then you'll encounter a traffic roundabout.

We're used to declarative grammar because it's convenient. We tend to believe our grammar. But I suggest that conditional grammar is what validly describes out physical world.

Michael Ossipoff

Evolutionary theory does indeed answer the question of why things act as they do. — Daniel Sjöstedt

I think it's reasonable to say that, and also to say that physics explains why some physical facts are as they are, explaining them in terms of other physical facts.

Science explains facts in our physical world in terms of other facts, and that qualifies validly as a "Why" answer.

But don't let anyone tell you that science can explain anything other than the relation of some physical facts to other physical facts. It can't take "Why" any farther than that.

Many people, called Science-Worshippers, or Scientificists, think they can apply science to metaphysics, and that science has the metaphysical answers. They're wrong.

Science-Worshippers are almost nonexistent at this forum.


But if somebody asks why things are not another way, the response he/she will get is "Because of A". But then there's the question, "Why A?". Whatever response you get, there's the question why that is the case. And so on. It seems we have an infinite regress and no definitive, conclusive answer to any "Why?". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, for one thing, physics probably will never be complete. Most likely (most here probably would agree), there is an infinite regress, even within physics. Something unexplained will be explained by a new theory, invoking new facts. But then those new facts call for explanation...and so on, ad infinitum.

But it's still valid to say that physics or other science answers a "Why?" question, when it explains one fact in terms of other facts. It certainly isn't an ultimate "Why" answer, but it's still a "Why"-in-terms-of-something-else answer. That's all I'd ask for in physics or other science.

No matter what answers science--or any kind of inquiry--produces, "Why?" remains.

Sure. Physics will probably never get to the end of its own "Why" explanations, an infinite-regress of them. ...and can't apply to metaphysics at all.

But I claim that, not in physics, but in metaphysics, there is an end to the "Why" explanations. ...because, in the metaphysics that I propose, it's all based on something inevitable and not needing explanation. So, metaphysically, it's all explained. (...even though that probably can't be achieved within physics)

Why does 2 + 2 = 4?

It can be demnstrated, based on the axioms of the integer number system, and the definition of the numbers,

It can be regarded as an "if'then" fact, with the "if" clause consisting of the integer number axioms and the definitions of the integers in terms of those axioms.

It can be regarded as a mathematical theorem, an if-then fact.

...whose "if" clause, as I said, consists of the axioms of the integer numbers, for the operations of multiplication and addition...and the definitions of the integers in terms of those axioms.

In terms of those axioms:

0 is the additive identity (if I remember the right word). 1 is the multiplicative identity. From those, all the numbers can be defined, by addition. And 2 + 2 = 4 can be demonstrated in the same way.

Whatever the answer to that is, "Why?". And so on.

2+2=4 is true if the integer number axioms are true, and if the numbers are defined as described above. So 2 + 2 = 4 can be regarded as an "if-then" statement, whose "if" clause includes, but isn't isn't limited to, a set of axioms. (what that "if" clause also includes is the definitions of the integers as described above.) The "then" clause is that the result is 4.

In the metaphysics that I propose, our whole physical world is a system of inter-referring if-then statements, and nothing more.

I thought that science, therefore, just focuses on what is and ignores or dodges "Why?".

Science can't answer an ultimate "Why?", but it can answer relative "Why", explaining one physical fact in terms of other physical facts, which is usually all that's asked or needed or expected.

Michael Ossipoff

It's reasonable to say that any self-consistent possible world, and anything in it, exists.

Likewise mathematical theorems, abstract logical facts, etc

I think that the word "actual" (for us) is usually reserved for what's in our own physical universe.

Michael Ossipoff

we watch "Jurassic" Dino-movies every week.

Jurassic-III is the best, because it's funny.

Jurassic II is next best, because of the priceless T-Rex on Main-Street. ...and the introduction of the 1.5 foot tall bipedal predator dinosaurs.

I didn't care for #4, but I liked its Pterodactyls.

Jurassic-1 suffered too much from Malcom's personality.

By the way, in #3, when the plane fell from the tree, if the fall took 3 seconds, then the 65 mph impact with the ground would be difficult to survive.

And did that little para-sail speedboat come all the way from Costa Rica, at least a 20 or 30 hour round-trip, across open ocean?

In #2, the ship-captain promised that if the team on the island radioed them, they'd be there in 2 hours. Why didn't they respond when called?

And of course the movies' main menacing dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex and Velociraptor were Cretaceous, not Jurassic.

Michael Ossipoff

It isn't so much a question of nutrition, as how the skeletal and muscular dynamics of creatures that large could hold up. There was talk at some stage that many of the long-necked dinosaurs spent most of their lives partially submerged so as to buoy them up. But those types of dinosaurs were again orders of magnitude larger than ancient mammals. — Wayfarer

Sure, larger animals are less able to support their weight on land. Maybe Brontosaurus ("Apatosaurus"), Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus spent most of their time in deep swamp-water, where bouyancy would help support their weight, and where they could be safe from land-predators.

Maybe a reduction in the amount of swampland prevented large mammals from having that opportunity.

Michael Ossipoff
.

.

Regarding the climate-effect of precession, I should add that it's a combination of two things actually:

Precession, and also the rotation of the absides (perihelion and aphelion), caused by gravitational perturbations by the other planets--but mostly by Jupiter. Together those two things result in an effect that has a period of about 20,000 years.

Another cyclical change caused by planetary perturbation is changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity.

Someone showed that these effects coincide well with ice-ages.

Of course with the arrival of the Anthropocene Epoch, we're the new main influence on climate.

Michael Ossipoff

Likely, after the KT impact greatly reduced the food-supply and the temperature, those things tended to kill-off reptiles, because of their greater temperature-sensiivity (or near-reptiles, if that's what the dinosaurs were), and big animals that needed abundant food.

Eventually, of course, some time after mammals took over, some of them, too, became big. The Baluchitherium ("Beast of Baluchistan) was much bigger than any modern land animal.

Maybe the dinosaurs were so big because food was so abundant before the impact. Maybe, when the KT dust-cloud settled, climate was again providing an abundant food-supply, allowing those large mammals.

Maybe later, climate became less favorable, and hunting by humans made large animals more vulnerable. But I think animals the size of Baluchitherium were already gone before humans arrived on the scene, and the Mammoth and Mastedon were the biggest then. ...and were evidently hunted to extinction by humans.

So, my first guess would be that, for some reason, modern climate doesn't provide a food supply sufficient for animals as large as the Baluchitherium, and already didn't when humans appeared.

But I'm just guessing.

Michael Ossipoff

Precession of the equinoxes, a top-like wobble caused mostly by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial-bulge, affects our climate as follows:

Because the Earth's orbit isn't perfectly circular, but rather a bit elliptical, it has a minimum-distance from the Sun (Perihelion) and, opposite it, a maximum-distance (Aphelion).

As the Earth precesses, the equinoxes move around the ecliptic (plane of the Earth's orbit).

The equinoxes are the points on our orbit where our orbital plane (the ecliptic) crosses the plane of the Earth's equator. At those places on our orbit, day and night are of equal length.

Precession moves those points around the ecliptic. Of course then the solstice-points of our orbit (where the Sun reaches its maximum distance north or south of the celestial equator) also move around the ecliptic in the same way.

So then, there's a time when the summer solstice occurs right at the perihelion (close approach) of our orbit.That will be a particularly hot summer. Right now, our summer solstice occurs near the aphelion (greatest distance from the Sun). That means that our summer is particularly cool.

Michael Ossipoff

The sun didn't "capture" earth, earth and the sun, plus all the other planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and various leftovers, all arose out of a disk of dust that happened to accumulate in this area of the Milky Whey and eventually went thermonuclear. — Bitter Crank

As the material contracted gravitationally, it would have tended to form a roughly spherical shape, except that, as the rotating material contracted, conservation of angular-momentum would have caused a disk of material to be spun-out along the equator of the forming Sun. That's the ecliptic disk from which the planets were formed.

Michael Ossipoff

From the figures that you gave, the micrometeorites have, during the period you specify, increased the Earth's mass by about a tenth of a billionth of what it was at the start of that period.

That would increase gravity at the Earth's surface by about the same fraction.

Well, actually a little less, if you count the fact that we're standing just a little bit higher, on top of that newly-arrived material.

For a given constant uniform density of material, a planet's surface-gravity is proportional to the planet's mass, divided by the square of its radius.

For some given constant uniform density, that would make a planet's surface gravity proportional to its diameter, or to the cube-root of its mass.

Looking at it that way, then you could say that the Earth's gravity would have increased by only 1/30 of a billionth of its value at the beginning of that period.

Michael Ossipoff

Do we know how it works? If we don't know how it works, do we really know what it is? — mew

Sure we do. It's an imaginary fiction created by Western academic philosophers so that they can have a "problem" to write about.

There's the animal. That's it. Regard the animal as a unitary thing, instead of artificially dissecting him/her into body and "Consciousness".

Michael Ossipoff

I should add that I once received a murder-threat, from a "moderator" at a Spiritual forum. Of course there were no consequences to the perp.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what the dispute was, that disillusioned or discouraged you, so of course I'm not in a position to disagree with you or judge your objections.

...but I can say this:

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.

1. I've been on forums where (regardless of whether there was nominally moderation), even the worst behavioral abuses were gotten-away-with.

2. I've been on forums where evidently any longtime participant could be a moderator, and usually abused their authority in order to win arguments that they started.

In fact, before this forum, those two kinds of forums were the only kind I'd encountered.

So, I repeat:

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.

Michael Ossipoff

..besides, even if Materialism were true (but it isn't), worlds consisting only of systems of inter-referring hypotheticals would still inevitably be--an infinity of them.

...meaning that, even if Materialism were true, a Materialist nature of this particlar physical world wouldn't change the inevitability of the infinitely-many possibility worlds, and therefore wouldn't rule-out reincarnation.

...a matter relevant to what we were talking about.

So, even if Materialism were true of this particular physical world, it would be superfluous and irrelevant overall.

Michael Ossipoff

Let me reply again to this post. Maybe a stronger suggestion can be made. Metaphysics isn’t really off-topic in this topic, because it relates to your comment/question about what’s true.
.

I know. The Eastern view on that is both preferable and more healthy but the true question is; what is true? — Beebert

In answer, I said that the Eastern position regarding our future is implied by Skepticism, and that Skepticism is particularly believable and plausible because of its complete parsimony. Maybe something stronger can be said:.
.
Actually, it seems to me that the Principle of Parsimony carries a lot more weight in metaphysics than in physics. …to the point of being compelling, or even conclusive. I’ve acknowledged that metaphysicses can’t be proved, but that might not be quite so, if parsimony is conclusive.
.
I suggest that a metaphysics with a brute fact wouldn’t “happen”, wouldn’t be true. Why should it?
.
A brute-fact is something that doesn’t have a reason. So obviously there’s no reason why it should be so, then there’s no reason to believe it to be so. And I further suggest that, in metaphysics, the absence of any reason for a metaphysics to be so, is a conclusive reason for it to not be so.
.
I realize that that’s a strong suggestion.
.
Why should there be the fundamentally, independently, existent, metaphysically-primary physical world of Materialism? If Materialists can’t give a reason for it, because there isn’t a reason for it, then I suggest that it wouldn’t be true.
.
So I suggest that the metaphysics that I propose, completely parsimonious, is the one that can and must be.
.
Reincarnation:
.
For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant difference between the metaphysics that I propose, vs the metaphysics of traditional Western religion, is reincarnation. Traditional Western religion says that everyone goes to Eternity at the end of this life. ]…a good Eternity or a bad Eternity.
.
Eastern religions say that someone who has something bad coming won’t go to Eternity, but will instead be reincarnated (maybe after a temporary hell). …and that, in fact, nearly everyone will experience reincarnation, maybe after a temporary heaven or hell.
.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, reincarnation is the relevant East-West difference.
.
As I’ve been saying, reincarnation is implied by Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose.
.
The reason why you’re in this life will remain, only somewhat modified, at the end of this life (unless you’ve, during this lifetime, achieved the status of an ascended-master, someone with no remaining needs, wants, undischarged consequences of consequence-producing acts,).
.
Now, I should admit that I can’t prove that death won’t amount to just going to sleep, dreamless, awareness-less sleep.
.
So maybe I should say that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, rather than implied by it.
.
But:
.
1. If there’s continuing anything after death, awareness and consciousness, instead of drift into a dreamless, awareness-less, nothingness-sleep, then Skepticism does imply that it will be reincarnation instead of immediate arrival at Eternity after this life.
.
2. There’s some reason to believe that death doesn’t become awareness-less-ness. Near-death experiences (NDEs), for one thing. Besides, sleep isn’t experience-less, with its dreams.
.
3. It has been suggested that even deep sleep is experienced, at least at its periphery, and merely isn’t remembered later.
.
By the way, reincarnation was mentioned in Christian scriptures, until those books were discarded at the Council Of Nicea. It has been plausibly suggested that reincarnation was deleted because the threat of eternal hell facilitates the extraction of money from old, rich sinners. As I said, even to this day, the Catholic church collects money to pray people into heaven…if they can afford it. Can’t afford to buy your way into heaven? Too bad!
.
Michael Ossipoff

Longing for absent things like a Saber-Tooth Tiger?

Michael Ossipoff

I meant to add that "create" sounds anthropomorphic, especially since it's agreed here that God isn't an element of metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

"What is?", and "Why what is?" are the subject of metaphysics, with the understanding that metaphysics and "Why?" can only be taken so far.

That what is, is good, isn't explainable, and calls only for gratitude.

...and gratitude for the good intent that's behind what is.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said;

So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)? — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, not in-so-far as Goodness (being a concept) is a limitation.

Goodness isn't a limitation for a God who is Goodness itself.

My argument on this matter is this, which I said a few posts ago:

I don't think that it's valid to believe in creation abstracted from Goodness.. I suggest that God is the reason why what is, is good

....the good intent behind what is. — Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

I know. The Eastern view on that is both preferable and more healthy but the true question is; what is true? — Beebert

Well, as I like to point out, the Eastern position is implied by Skepticism, the most parsimonious, the fully parsimonious, and therefore the most plausible and believable, metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Sounds like abstract philosophy. Whether abstract philosophy is appropriate in this instance is the question.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

In an earlier post, you agreed that God is Goodness. — Michael Ossipoff — Agustino

Reference?

I'll find where you said it and paste it into a post, with the date and page stated.

You continued:

And I would agree that he's Goodness, but only in the analogical, not categorical way. Ultimately he is beyond that.

So your God isn't really Goodness (except by analogy??)?

What then?

You might say the Creator, but then you seem to making creation into something abstract, neither good, bad or neutral. ...abstracting creation from Goodness. I suggest that abstraction like that is only something that philosophers come up with. I don't think that it's valid to believe in creation abstracted from Goodness.. I suggest that God is the reason why what is, is good

....the good intent behind what is.

Michael Ossipoff