You do not know about nothing but you have the right to speak whatsoever topic. I hate democracy

laws of nature

How do you define laws of nature according to your personal beliefs ?

We can't afford to make the same mistake again and again, but it looks like that's exactly what we're really good at. — Agent Smith

Exactly, it looks like we do not know how to learn of bad experiences.

George W. Bush — Agent Smith

We should not expect nothing from a politician :down:

Data can be stored in both our knowledge and primarily emotions. For example: Imagine you get burned by touching a hot pot. After suffering the wound of burning yourself, you create a special data of not doing again.
This can be related to the basic principles of empiricism

Data reside in computers. Not in your brain. Your knowledge is a simulation of the world.

Sorry, I am disagree. Data is clearly in our brains too. It is an important fact that help us to face the life according to our experience

It is the concept of time and its paradoxes which I am most interested on metaphysics. I enjoy reading all your opinions and theories related to this topic. One of the phrases that makes me thinking about the "violation" of Ockham's razor:
Every instance of time travel generating an infinite number of alternative universes might be thought to violate Ockham's Razor, especially since the idea that an alternative universe could be generated in the first place has disturbing consequences for the metaphysics of identity.

Interesting, doesn't it?

Where does this go wrong? — Hillary

I think it doesn't goes wrong. It is just another example of time paradox. You used an interesting one according to Pascal triangle and I liked it. But my guess is that we end up in the same place: time doesn't exist "outside" our existence. It is an empirical term. We cannot put different concepts of time (present, future, past, conditions, etc...) because they are all dependent on us.

"I know that I know nothing"

- Socrates

:death: :flower:

Perhaps we can jump and not "travel" — Agent Smith

Interesting view. But if we "jump" through the time, what would happen? Do you think we would observe a metaphysical change in our world or just a loop of ourselves jumping infinite times?

Harakiri/Seppuku (Samurai code) — Agent Smith

While Harakari/Seppuku tend to be poetic and aesthetic. I see "memetic suicide" as unreasonable without any context, like it seems to appear when we are debating and suddenly we accidentally commit a self-refutation

idea of a "viewing" rather than "traveling" to the past, particularly as imagined by Arthur C. Clarke in this co-authored novel ... — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing it. Another interesting perspective indeed. As I see, time has always been an important topic to both philosophers and scientists to discuss about.
We can see and debate a lot of views over the same topic!

Another really good book, dealing with paradoxes piled on paradoxes, is "One Day All This Will Be Yours" by Adrian Tchaikovsky. I also find this one very convincing in describing just how far time-travel paradoxes could go. — T Clark

Thanks for the book recommendation! :up:

The existence of time travel is not a metaphysical question, it's a question of fact, no matter what "disturbing consequences" it may or may not have. — T Clark

My guess is that when the article refers to “consequences” is related to multiuniversal scenarios. Because if it could be possible to manipulate how time “works”, then, it would be possible to manipulate our universe too. This would create different worlds with different (or similar…) T Clarks and Javis… well this is just my guess trying to see it as metaphysical but it is true that the opinion of Kant is more rigid:[Time] does not exist independently among things in themselves.

It would be still a paradox because according to Einstein there is not present neither future. Time is just relative or cyclical

I guess it was compared to day/night rhythm for practical reasons. They did most of the actions during morning and afternoon, then they working day ended up at night. For Ancient Egypt it was so important the role of the Sun to all the characteristics. They even blessed it as a God.
[...] the birth of the sun god Rê, , which is going to be a New Year event.

Isn't a clock moving? Isn't a pendulum going to and fro periodically? Can't you move the pendulum? Doesn't the pendulum have double motion even?

These objects which "represent" time are related to the move of sun, not to the motion of time. This is why the first clock ever created was in Ancient Egypt and this specific clock was connected to the variation from the sunlight
The "heliacal rising" of Sirius means the morning (and the Egyptian day began at dawn) on which the star Sirius can first be seen in the eastern sky right before sunrise. This was to the Egyptians the astronomical beginning of the year, though the actual heliacal rising moved through the Egyptian calendar, since the Egyptian calendar year was 365 days long with no leap day.

Well, not me. I don't know that time is unidirectional. That is, I don't know that time is moving in one direction.

:up: :100:

Sometimes linguistic philosophers or people in linguistics like the idea that languages where verbs have no temporal inflection are used by people who have no awareness of time.
[...] Greek philosophers themselves did not notice the aspect system in their own language but began the tradition of thinking exclusively in terms of past, present, and future. Yet in the subjunctive and imperative moods, Greek verbs are only inflected for aspect. Thus, Aristotle's analysis of "future contingency" in On Interpretation would have been stronger and made better sense as "imperfect contingency."
If you are interested, I recommend you this essay: Past, Present, and Future, A Philosophical Essay.

Thanks for sharing it. I will give it look later on whenever I would finish my study tasks!

Good answer :100:

I gave it a try in a humanistic point of view because the OP (I suppose :lol: ) is referring to soul, personality, realism, etc… and all of these topics are already debated by empiricists and rationalists.
But I want to aggregate a brief to your example because I really enjoyed it when I have read it.
“Landlord” and “occupant” are terms that are already defined by a law (unless you are from an Anglo-Saxon law country) so the parts shall not have doubts in the agreement. This is called in my country as arrendamiento. The landlord has the right of being paid every first week of each month and the occupant has to pay him. If he doesn’t do so, the landlord has the will of kick him out of the land/flat through a trial process.
What I wanted to share here is that sometimes is necessary to be specific in terms of “who we are or who are they”. If there is a doubt do not worry we shall go to a civil court :lol:

You maybe good, but you think you're bad — Agent Smith

Taoism, puts a great deal of emphasis on this (lateral) inversion: People who behave humbly are actually arrogant and vice versa; fools are sages and sages are fools; so on and so forth! — Agent Smith

I think I am making good arguments in this forum… but who knows what is the thought of the other members about me and my reflection in this site?
This thread is interesting and I am deeply saddened that I am tend to be pretty pessimistic in this issue.
I personally think that most of the people need subterfuges or imagination because they do not like reality or as you have said: Self-reflection.
In Buddhism, without a substantial self, the self is a collection of things, the "aggregates" (skandhas,): 1) the body, or "form," 2) feelings, 3) ideas, 4) impressions, & 5) momentary consciousness.

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
-The Heart Sutra

here is some help....god is not a philosophical topic, like magic is not a philosophical topic.
You might find logical contradictions...but magic can be adjusted since it doesn't have follow any rules of our reality. — Nickolasgaspar

:up: :100:

I guess the OP wants a humanistic answer. We can give it a try and define ourselves as well as we define conciousness: we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt. Cogito, ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am"
But in this context we can be helped by the Johari window: Room one is the part of ourselves that we and others see. Room two contains aspects that others see but we are unaware of. Room three is the private space we know but hide from others. Room four is the unconscious part of us that neither ourselves nor others see. (Johari Window)

So what?

When did I dictated religious beliefs?

Your arguments and words sounds like a totalitarian person. You have to be more open minded and try to understand (or have empathy) with other views.

I think having supernatural or divine powers (whoever the entity) are vacuous characteristics. We have to understand and accept that the humans are weak and we have to suffer until our lives end

What is an "ordinary" man according to your thoughts? Because I am atheist, for example

Most Christians would say they follow God, not a priest/pastor/prophet. If they follow a man, then they stand in opposition to the book they claim to rely on. — whollyrolling

Understandable, but I was referring to religion as an overall not Christianity as a specific example

So what's going on here?

Speculation. Something which is so mixed with universe and space since the rich discovered the trick to explode that vast area. It is not new and we will see more projects similar to these ones.

In other words, it would be unfair to compare Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

Exactly :up: :100:

You are right that Buddhism uses animals as symbolism in their metaphors. Even the elephant is a cult animal in India.
Inside Christianity it is often used the phrase lambs of God. The metaphor is related to the followers of the average priest representing the Christian values. Nevertheless, I see it as an insult because it seems to be a relation to follow some standards without questioning the circumstances

Chronological order: — Agent Smith

:up:

Logical order: — Agent Smith

I think there could not be a "logical order" in terms of categorise religions. All of them are just metaphors which were born by a prophet discussing them. They even tend to share the same principles or basic points such as: God, suffering, uncertainty, life afterwards, etc...
But just from a different interpretation

religion isn't ideology. — SpaceDweller

It could be interpreted as an ideology since the moment when it is based on "faithful" who follow a leader/prophet just for religious ideas or beliefs

Hello Louis, welcome to the forum.

I am agree with your arguments. I want to add that veganism has become since the 2010's an other kind of mass similar to how Ortega y Gasset described it. I think inside veganism there are two sides who win: 1. Some companies or entrepreneurs who see it coming and started developing products just for "vegans". They were so clever and earned so much money playing with the health of the people.
2. Some political movements or lobbies. They are so called as Greens. I remember them just as a tiny group of members. Nevertheless, nowadays they are part of governments. Then, they created it another kind of "social agent" inside politics as well as trade workers or tobacco factories.

That is the aim, my friend — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We can finish here then. You put on the table very good arguments to consider about. Thanks for debating with me in this thread. See you in the future in other thread/topic related to our uncertainties and concerns :up:

Why not just be like me and say that you don’t know one way or another and instead try to work out probabilities one way or another while admitting that each have probability? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

If I do so, this debate ends because it would means we reached an agreement in our controversial discussion

And I don’t think you do either. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It is true that I do not know it neither. But this is exactly the case I was looking for. Trying to protect (or at least guaranteed) the uncertainty of what the future holds. We both do not know what is the mind of teenager (well, we experienced it but we are in other businesses now) and then, for this reason, we have to take part in the issue and make basic rules to protect them. Probably everything ends up without any problem at all... but who knows? So in this issue we need something to put them on a safe context in the future.
This is like an insurance. Probably you would never experienced something tragic as a fire, but you sign an agreement with the company for whatever could occur in the future.

Laissez-faire: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

[Laissez-faire] is an economic theory from the 18th century that opposed any government intervention in business affairs. The driving principle behind laissez-faire, a French term that translates to "leave alone" (literally, "let you do")

The Holy Land. — whollyrolling

Holy land according to your own religious beliefs. But Jerusalem is in nowadays: One of Israel's Basic Laws, the Jerusalem Law of 1980, refers to "complete and undivided" Jerusalem as the country's capital. All of the institutions of the Israeli government are located within Jerusalem, including the Knesset, the residences of the Prime Minister (Beit Aghion) and President (Beit HaNassi), and the Supreme Court. While Israel's claim to sovereignty over West Jerusalem is more widely accepted by the international community, its claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem is regarded as illegitimate, and East Jerusalem is consequently recognized by the United Nations as Palestinian territory that is occupied by Israel

You are trying to change the topic or mix it but I will not fall in that trick. Jerusalem is not part of our discussion. The city is even far away from Europe. I just put some examples of how crusades (tended) to finish Muslims just for religious purposes.
You can try to turn the tables but the historical fact is that one: crusades were an invention of Christianity to vanish Muslims or whatever groups different from them

didn't slaughter all the members of any society, and they didn't target just any society with different beliefs, they slaughtered Muslims specifically, — whollyrolling

You, indirectly, assumed that crusades slaughtered some people of a specific community just for religious issues.
In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the Pope called on Western Christians to take up arms to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. This marked the beginning of the Crusades. Crusades

If anything, it can be observed that free speech is a threat to Christianity and has quite successfully suppressed it. — whollyrolling

Then, according to your own thoughts, Christianity can only be developed with totalitarianism. As crusades did…