On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:30:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 13:23, Relf wrote:
>> Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential
>> entropy).
>>
>> tnp> Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?
>>
>> The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
>> We're in the middle, always.
>
> Now answer the question...

https://sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits013.htm

'QUESTIONS WHICH TEND NOT TO EDIFICATION.'

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
> did it'

Enter metaphysics, stage right.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Neither of which are particularly satisfying.

Is the Universe here to satisfy you?

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:13:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered:
>
> 'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable
> question'.

Aka the “Anthropic Principle”.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:32:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Or was it simply God Swill?

Is the Universe too complex and wonderful to have arisen by itself?

If so, there must have been some creator agency that brought it into
being.

But wouldn’t this creator agency have been even more complex and wonderful
than the Universe?

So how could it have arisen by itself?

On 27 Oct 2024 17:22:05 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> Einstein, on the other hand, believed so fervently in
> a steady state universe that he introduce the Cosmological Fudge Factor
> to make his math work.

He thought it was a mistake. Some nowadays are not so sure (cf “Dark
Energy”).

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 26/10/2024 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-10-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>>
>>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>>
>> This contrasts with your typical math text book, which starts out with
>> a few pages of trivial statements before making the jump to the edge
>> of the universe, cued by that magical phrase "It is obvious that..."
>>
> My nephew is a Native German speaker with a native German father and
> stepfather. He studied philosophy at an English university.
>
> I asked him whether he read Kant in the original German. He said no, he
> found the English translations *easier to understand*.
>
> There is an apocryphal saying that "All the problems of French philosophy
> would have been solved if they had written them down in German"
>
> Heidegger is unmitigated shit really. I gave up after a chapter or two.
> Wittgenstein says that the mark of a true philosopher is that he will have
> thrown a book written by a famous philsopher into the corner, unfinished,
> more than once
>
> 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered:
>
> 'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable question'.
> Even asking 'why' in the context of the universe is a massively
> anthropocentric statement. 'Why' applies to human beings, not the world .
> Taoists say it better.
>
> "The Tao is that which exists through itself" (Tao being the sort of essence
> of being-ness).
>
> Or Wittgenstein "The world is everything that is the case"
>
> Right on chum, I would never have guessed.
>
> Nietzsche is more tongue in cheek and amusing:
>
> “Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one
> solution: it is called pregnancy. "
>
> But philosophers like Hume, Kant and so on have extreme implication for
> philosophy of science, as they show conclusively that no theory as such can
> ever be proven to be true.
>
> This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a
> collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are
> mutually consistent and seem to work.
>
> This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of physics.

Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive
empiricist?

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>
>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>> that state ...
>>
>>   Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>   about a week before elections.
>>
>>   As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>   but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>   correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>
> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>
> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all end up
> washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>
> Of course the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is only a
> man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be proven true or
> false.
>

The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades ago.
Here's a hand!

On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>
>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>> ...
>
> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.

Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
understood what she was talking about.

I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
those feminists I fucked hard!

On 10/27/2024 9:46 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>
>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>> ...
>>
>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>
>
> Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
> conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
> understood what she was talking about.
>
> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
> those feminists I fucked hard!

Lying chimp. You've only ever fucked your hand.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>
> Can you be certain of that?

Certainly maybe.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
>> did it'
>
> Enter metaphysics, stage right.

Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US.

We need to GET OVER IT.

On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>
>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
be in
>>>> that state ...
>>>
>>> Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>> about a week before elections.
>>>
>>> As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>> but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>> correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>
>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>
>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>
>> Of course the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>> proven true or false.
>>
>
> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> ago. Here's a hand!

Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.

We are PRODUCTS of The Universe, but each product must
have its own special perspective. In more computer terms
it's like The System trying to eval/evolve itself. Even at
best, the eval CHANGES the System, so it's a never-ending
task. Yea, kinda 'quantum' in some respects - don't LOOK
or you change what you're looking at.

It's reality's "Fuck You !" :-)

On 27/10/2024 21:32, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a
>> collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are
>> mutually consistent and seem to work.
>>
>> This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of
>> physics.
>
> Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive
> empiricist?

Closest to the last. But I would say I use transcendental idealism the
most :-)

Use of a metaphysical worldview speeds computations enormously at the
expense of never being 100% reliable...

But that's OK, as there are plenty of sub optimal worldviews to use on
an ad hoc basis.

The problems people encounter is when they mistake a worldview for
objective reality.

Engineers are very used to the idea that laws are not so much real, as
useful rules of thumb.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>
>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>>> that state ...
>>>
>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>
>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>
>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>
>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>
>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>> proven true or false.
>>
>
> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> ago. Here's a hand!

Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with
'something exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'

Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in which
a hand can be held up before he can perform the action.

Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking (proper
transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish, subjectively.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 28/10/2024 04:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> >>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
> >>>>
> >>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
> be in
> >>>> that state ...
> >>>
> >>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
> >>>    about a week before elections.
> >>>
> >>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
> >>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
> >>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
> >>>
> >> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
> >>
> >> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
> >> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
> >>
> >> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
> >> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
> >> proven true or false.
> >>
> >
> > The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> > ago. Here's a hand!
>
>
>   Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
>   that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
>   see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
>   bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
>   Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.
>
Yes. That is the underlying basis for the views of Plato, Kant,.
Schopenhauer et al.
Its Reality Jim, but not as we know it...

>   We are PRODUCTS of The Universe, but each product must
>   have its own special perspective.

There is a stronger case for saying the Universe is a product of us. If
by Universe you means a comprehensible external reality.

Materialism claims E=f(R) (experience is a function of an external reality)
Idealism claims E=f(M) (experience is a function of the Mind)
Transcendental idealism combines the pair into
E=f(M,R) (experience is a function of 'what's really there' as
interpreted by the mind).

Unfortunately whilst this solves many problems it introduces an idea
that is anathema to the Realists - namely that Mind is an independent
variable neither part of the real world nor the perceived world.

Of course this used to be simply accepted. It was the soul, or the holy
spirit. or holy ghost.

Today we talk about 'consciousness' and the 'problem of consciousness'
which is simply the inherent circular reasoning that comprises the
realists world view, such that an emerging property of something becomes
able to comprehend the thing it is an emergent property of.

> In more computer terms
>   it's like The System trying to eval/evolve itself. Even at
>   best, the eval CHANGES the System, so it's a never-ending
>   task. Yea, kinda 'quantum' in some respects - don't LOOK
>   or you change what you're looking at.
>
Exactly. It's recursive. And recursion leads to paradox. You have to
introduce another independent variable to break out of the loop.

Does the set of all sets contain itself? No, It is of a different
*order* to all sets. It neither contains nor does not contain itself, it
is in fact congruent with itself. Russell was a tosser.

>   It's reality's "Fuck You !"  :-)

Well it does in the limit expose the limitations of our current metaphysics.

And cause us to question exactly what it is that our science is
investigating.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

On 28/10/2024 01:46, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>
>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>> ...
>>
>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>
>
> Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
> conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
> understood what she was talking about.
>
> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
> those feminists I fucked hard!

The Nietzschean approach. Much to recommend it.

--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey

On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>
>> Can you be certain of that?
>
>
> Certainly maybe.
The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different
dimension

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 28/10/2024 04:37, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
>>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
>>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
>>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
>>> did it'
>>
>> Enter metaphysics, stage right.
>
>
>   Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US.
>
>   We need to GET OVER IT.

Clue about the universe *as we see it*

ITS ALL ABOUT US. It is simply riddled with anthropic concepts to the
point that people dimly recognise this, and exclaim 'I've found God!'

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>
>> Can you be certain of that?
>
>
> Certainly maybe.
>

Ahh, but keep in mind that doubt undermines itself, since doubt needs a
platform from which to doubt.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>
>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>>>> that state ...
>>>>
>>>> Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>> about a week before elections.
>>>>
>>>> As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>> but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>> correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>
>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>
>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>
>>> Of course the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>>> proven true or false.
>>>
>>
>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
>> ago. Here's a hand!
>
>
> Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
> that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
> see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
> bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
> Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.

I think this is pretty obvious. I also think it shows that Buddha was a
wise man!

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 21:32, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a
>>> collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are
>>> mutually consistent and seem to work.
>>>
>>> This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of
>>> physics.
>>
>> Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive
>> empiricist?
>
> Closest to the last. But I would say I use transcendental idealism the most
> :-)
>
> Use of a metaphysical worldview speeds computations enormously at the expense
> of never being 100% reliable...
>
> But that's OK, as there are plenty of sub optimal worldviews to use on an ad
> hoc basis.
>
> The problems people encounter is when they mistake a worldview for objective
> reality.
>
> Engineers are very used to the idea that laws are not so much real, as useful
> rules of thumb.

It is a mystery to me that you have not blocked me already. From time to
time, I find that we agree on some things, and at other times, I find that
we violently disagree (possibly). Maybe, there is more common ground to be
discovered by carefully examining definitions over a whiskey and a cigar?
Maybe.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>
>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>>>> that state ...
>>>>
>>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>>
>>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>
>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>
>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all end
>>> up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>
>>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is only
>>> a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be proven
>>> true or false.
>>>
>>
>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades ago.
>> Here's a hand!
>
> Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with 'something
> exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'
>
> Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in which a
> hand can be held up before he can perform the action.
>
> Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking (proper
> transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish, subjectively.

Actually, the brilliance is that he does not. The hand is proof of the
external world. The TM-guy does not cease to exist, and neither does the
world. You can easily utilize the same proof as Moore. It is brilliant in
its simplicity, and I think that is why some people don't get it. It is
simply too "easy".

Another extremely strong point in its favour is that it is actually the people
who propose that there is no external world who need to come up with the
arguments for it and so far, no one has been able to successfully convince
the world at large, that the external world does not exist, by coming up
with an alternative, that has iron clad proof.

Another indication of the strength of the position of a material world
existing is that about 70% of professional philosopher subscribe to this.
This is of course not a proof, but a strong indication as well.

On 28/10/2024 10:22, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
>>>>>> be in
>>>>>> that state ...
>>>>>
>>>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>>>
>>>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>>
>>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>>
>>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will
>>>> all end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>>
>>>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>>>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>>>> proven true or false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
>>> ago. Here's a hand!
>>
>> Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with
>> 'something exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'
>>
>> Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in
>> which a hand can be held up before he can perform the action.
>>
>> Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking
>> (proper transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish,
>> subjectively.
>
> Actually, the brilliance is that he does not. The hand is proof of the
> external world. The TM-guy does not cease to exist, and neither does the
> world. You can easily utilize the same proof as Moore. It is brilliant
> in its simplicity, and I think that is why some people don't get it. It
> is simply too "easy".
>
> Another extremely strong point in its favour is that it is actually the
> people who propose that there is no external world who need to come up
> with the arguments for it and so far, no one has been able to
> successfully convince the world at large, that the external world does
> not exist, by coming up with an alternative, that has iron clad proof.
>
> Another indication of the strength of the position of a material world
> existing is that about 70% of professional philosopher subscribe to
> this. This is of course not a proof, but a strong indication as well.

I think you are still stuck in the same dichotomy that transcendental
idealism simply removes from the board.

Is it all in the mind or is the mind the product of it all?
TI says 'both, and neither'

Reality as we understand it is 'something else' interpreted by 'our minds'

There is no *proof* of any of this. These are metaphysical positions.
Judged only by their *utility*. Models that are more or less useful

Their truth content is indecidable.

And anyone who claims otherwise has missed the boat

And at least 90% of professional philosophers don't really understand
metaphysics.

--
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
– Will Durant

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 09:39 this Monday (GMT):
> On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>>
>>> Can you be certain of that?
>>
>>
>> Certainly maybe.
> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
> irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different
> dimension

"There are no absolutes" is also a paradox
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom