Philosophy is Dead

Most of us are blind from our perspective... Sight is not a gift, but a skill...People have to learn how to see, what to look for, and what to disregard... By that I would use you and your "worlds" as illustration.

We put laws on nature...It puts infinites on us...

Independently of what we might think/believe this Law´s are, there ARE Law`s ! UNITY implies them...
...or is n´t Being, ONE ??? Ha !

We are always upon the epistemic problem...I try to jump ahead !

You touched on an important issue about unity of laws. I'm not so sure we understand all the laws of physics.

Well... whether philosophy is dead - and I happen to hear this quite a lot over the last 30 years - it's a tricky and dense issue.
Jumping to conclusions, I would say that that is not the case, at least for the simple reason that one cannot kill philosophy. Whoever tries to do that is philosophizing, he's fueling the fire he's trying to extinguish - this thread proves that, I guess.

I experience that there is gravity. Physics is not even sure about what it is, but we still experience that.
Now why would I deny that I experience gravity because physics cannot really tell me what it is?
Why would one philosopher accept that Physics writes down the entries in his agenda, neglecting his own findings?
One can do that, of course - philosophy is a free republic, regardless what specialists may believe. But why one must do that?

Philosophy can use physics, as it can use any other "science" (psychology?), but that is not compulsory.
By the way, it seems to me that the epistemological status of these sciences is greatly exaggerated and that is ultimately a work of philosophy. There are so many unspoken assumptions in their work of which they are barely aware, while they are pretty clear to the philosophical mind.
Those that wonder helplessly about the status of philosophy, trying to find it a niche in the taxonomy of science - and I find this hilarious -seem to me as people trapped in their own devices.
Maybe we should reverse the perspective here. I believe that physicians would have no clues about where to move and to look for, about how to build up theories and devise experiments unless they use a bit of philosophy.
They would not be there without "us".
If philosophy is dead, physics is next in line...

Great... Ask me a serious questions about infinites like existence, God, or nature... I welcome the opportunity to tell the truth: I don't know, and neither does anyone else... We have only finite knowledge of finite objects... So you have your law of nature...Goody for you... To me its worth is utilitarian only... The moment it gets in your head that there is such a law; your thoughts are from that moment limited...

What thoughts would you have at all without any Law´s in place ?

You are correct to recognize that laws, rules, forms, ideas are all part of an ordered existence, which we presume, and have evidence for; so that our conserved notions, identity helps us to classify what we experience, and learn from it... What if we have some law like the conservation of matter, and it actually blinds us to the true possible reality which blinds us to a truer possible reality??? Just because nature seems to come ordered as though following laws does not mean there are such laws, but that is the situation we desire so we can say we know, and there certainty is the enemy of knowledge...

So; without the thought that there are such laws I would not think, or know much... I guess that the prejudice has limited knowledge across the board, and if we think in terms of laws we should discount the thought almost as much as it is valued...

Well...we can do two things concerning this matter mostly depending on how we entertain its purpose...or we drop it out of lacking certainty or we actually address it based on our best possible judgement, which bottom line, can be resumed to informed opinion at best...

Being, if to be possible, must have, to consist, in a fixed Identity... it properly could be resumed to Identity only, but it seams needed to reinforce the idea unfortunately, so I do it...the Identity of BEING is sustain by Law which is its Nature made phenomena, "spirit" made "flesh" to use a metaphorical figure...
Law which is not limit, upon the dynamics (manifestation) of Being, as dynamics, and yet shapes it...makes it be ! ...and that´s precisely what TRUTH signifies !

...What was meant, is that there can be many (derived) law´s, but there is only one LAW !...

...after all, what can BE without IDENTITY ???

Concerning the nonsensical attack on Philosophy as a formal Institution I have this sentence who kills it down to where it belongs...

PHILOSOPHY DOES N´T HAVE A "CATHEDRA", IT MAKES (shapes) CATHEDRAS !

Thoughts of chaos and destruction looking for equilibrum within the environment in which the 'thinker' exists. In other words, the type of thoughts we might have without intellect to give structure to thought.

I have trouble with the term 'Laws' and prefer to use the term 'natural order' Natural order describes a process, unlike 'Law' which describes some definitive act that has been prescribed into our Universe. So:

Did natural order come into existence to become thought form, or has consciousness as form of thought brought nature into existence?

And on another note: We can conceive of infinity, however it would take an infinite amount of time to do so. We draw ideas and experiences from the infinite in every instant of our experience of reality. But our experience is limited in finite time so we don't recognise this emergence. However, were we able to suspend time, or to condense time to a single moment we would find that we have merged with the infinite to discover that there is silence.

The laws of conservation are a form of identity, as identity itself is a law itself, that forms do not suddenly change their nature.... A maggot can become a fly but that is its nature... My point is not that these laws as conservation and identity are not useful, but Einstien made his bones essentially shreding the law of conservation of matter.... And he for his part turned an existing equasion to discover the relationship between energy and matter from the point of view of the energy we so desire.... What if he said: A Law is a Law is a Law, and did not free his mind to the possibilities that lay beyond that law, if the law were not a complete, but only partial statement of reality... Think of the crimp on progress the ordered ptolemaic universe was... When the Church defended its ordered world it was their own ordered worlds they were defending...We should consider all such laws only as good as they serve a useful purpose, and in no sense binding upon nature...

Here's the wikipedia article on "quantum mind".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Read it and tell me how philosophy is dead

Law´s are not prescribed...they prescribe !(Prescribed Law´s are not Law´s at all)
...I may be wrong, but I think you still don´t get to what I´m aiming at...

1 - LAW´S are about something rather then nothing...(from ever)
2 - LAW´S don´t divide "Creator" and "Creation", but bind them together does rendering the terms obsolete...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - Fido, Truth is not a moral form as the thing in itself...what can be a moral form is our conception of Truth...two different things...

2 - You really have to apply the same rules to your own speech, given for instance, that if Truth were to be a moral relative form, moral form itself would n´t mean anything...

3 - In order for relativity itself to be conceivable and make any sense you need at least, one Absolute referent...with Einstein it was light speed...

4 - Truth and Law are synonym descriptions of the same thing, or to put it in another way, Law is the description of Truth !

5 - Interpretation is process that needs a referent, something THAT IS, and not relative fiction...

6 - You can make a relative upon a relative, but eventually in the chain, one of them will refer to the real thing, and through it, so all the others...

PS - As I mention in other occasions, your "perspective" is far into the transcendental realm, and in such way, that comes to be transcendent, even to itself...

3. There is one constant: You. You are present in every single moment you experience. An inevitable constant.

4. But only to the best of our ability. We see things as we are, not as things are.

5. You are not a relative fiction, and you are 3.

6. Yes, but only to one who posesses the level of ability on which these relatives are made. If it's in some slum trailer or on a superadvanced alien world the relatives are made, they may not agree with your "real thing". You also have to consider the possiblility that they may not even like you.

Agreed !

Whatever I am, besides what I believe I am, I am true, if Truth must be...
( that was the point to be made in the previous post )
I did n´t try to describe it (Truth) but only its terms...

See you around !

Good, cause I probably have relatives that are not related to your relatives, like my german uncle...

Well...I have a partial German origin...Kreiseler is the name.
(Never mind my English I still have this terrible tendency to direct translation who swings all backwards...)

Hi, I was going to start a long and measured argument why listening to these atheistic and propoganda like vids is folly. Who puts together and funds these arguments altogether is beyond me. Just think if i had that kind of finance and backing what i could do on youtube. A Jesuit/Buddhi revolution no doubt! Soon we would have little fat monks, and pale white bearded blokes popping up all over the place, from desktops to TV lounges. All proclaiming the same message: There is one god and his name is.... Er. Jesus? Buddha? Jebub? Goddha? LOL. The possibilites are boundless. And what I have to contend with instead is ikeing out an existence in a stupid mental health hospital, with only my thumbs and fingers, and a far too intelligent university book for company. Woe the life of a madman.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the religious life, and it's close brethren spirituality is responsible for much more then just bedside hotel bibles, and paedaphile priests. Without God we wouldn't have Martin Luther King. No Malcom X. And without the holy vintage spirit no JFK. You know he was taken out by a fringe that wanted the Vietnam war (that profited by it), and of which he was actually against and about to put a stop to, and this is despite whatever the official version of events were. I don't know much about the american history. Except that I'm sure that the great US revolution was itself inspired by the Bible as well. Along with the Boston Tea Party and G. Washington. I can personally equate the love of the Bible with modern day music (take the Beatles). And Hendrix. And Led Zeppelin. But the list goes on. God and spirituality, if taken by its actual and humanistic appreciation, is responsable for a lot more then just a few measly things you could write on the back of a cigarrette card. Infact faced with inventions of physics (the gun, the a bomb, electricity, the motor car, Macdonalds), it is surely a close race.

I mean I guess I would prefer to live in a world without guns and war, then one without bedside Beatles and 'All you need is love'. But then I guess this is just me. Take it easy.