5
   

The job of Philosophy

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:25 pm


Richard Feynman wrote:

“There's a kind of saying that you don't understand its meaning, 'I don't believe it. It's too crazy. I'm not going to accept it.'… You'll have to accept it. It's the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that's the way it looks. You don't like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it, okay? If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.”
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:26 pm
@Albuquerque,
Now what you have there is a loop fractal of a collapsing circle posing as Infinity! What is the amount of information in that ever shrinking circle?
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:27 pm
@Jasper10,
Spectator in my pov. No free will!
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:30 pm
@maxdancona,
A Set is the common denominator, a given quality, used to describe a group !
How close am I for a non mathematician eh? I wonder what is your answer?
it might make me laugh common explain it. What is a Set more than what I just said?
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:37 pm
@maxdancona,
In sum magic right? Feynman was a hippie fool playing Bongo with his son and rightfully kept away from the Manhattan project!
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:38 pm
@Albuquerque,
With respect...That’s where you are going wrong....Ones needs to become a PLAYER....This what scares scientists...They don’t want to become part of the game hence why they know very little about consciousness and how we all relate to it.Remaining a SPECTATOR is not the way.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:39 pm
@Jasper10,
Precisely because we are part of the game what we want is not separate from what the World needs you to want!
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:45 pm
@maxdancona,
It is funny because mathematicians often claim that Maths have nothing to do nor needs the real world to keep going.
More ironically its your colleagues in computer science that want to get rid of infinity as soon as possible. Ad a great deal of Physicists to the group and even some bold honest mathematicians.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:49 pm
@Albuquerque,
Being a player means one has an influence on the outcome of the game.A spectator has no influence whatsoever on the outcome of the game.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 02:54 pm
@Jasper10,
Yes you have the influence the whole shebang made you start wanting in the first place. It is not separate but rather entangled and united!
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:06 pm
My argument against Infinity goes like this:

1 - Never stop counting is not a sound argument to describe what infinity actually is.

2 - Why? And what should the proper criteria be? INFORMATION! A loop fractal!
As a loop fractal has a finite amount of information (novelty) but never stops.

There you have it the clue that was needed to explain away Infinities.

0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:17 pm
...aaaah blessed be the algorithms of you tube for giving me what I need when I need it, here:

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:21 pm
@Jasper10,
Jasper10 wrote:

With respect...That’s where you are going wrong....Ones needs to become a PLAYER....This what scares scientists...They don’t want to become part of the game hence why they know very little about consciousness and how we all relate to it.Remaining a SPECTATOR is not the way.


I think I understand what you are saying. Science by its very nature must be a "spectator". The goal of science is to analyze what exists. That's all it does. In my opinion science is beneficial, and its benefits come because science is focused on one thing.

I don't believe that science is everything. There are other sources of "truth" (whatever truth means).

But science is well-defined in itself.


0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:21 pm
@Jasper10,
Jasper10 wrote:

With respect...That’s where you are going wrong....Ones needs to become a PLAYER....This what scares scientists...They don’t want to become part of the game hence why they know very little about consciousness and how we all relate to it.Remaining a SPECTATOR is not the way.


I think I understand what you are saying. Science by its very nature must be a "spectator". The goal of science is to analyze what exists. That's all it does. In my opinion science is beneficial, and its benefits come because science is focused on one thing.

I don't believe that science is everything. There are other sources of "truth" (whatever truth means).

But science is well-defined in itself.


Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:24 pm
@maxdancona,
I haven't forgotten yet, nor will I let go, that you Troll, have claimed the term trans finite I alluded to was invented by me on the spot! I prove you wrong because you actually are a poser and for most of Mathematics an ignoramus that understands less then someone who never studied Maths. How bad is that, and how ironic?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:33 pm
@Albuquerque,
I actually said that the term "transfinite calculus" was invented by you on the spot.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:44 pm
@maxdancona,
...yeah, you are right in muddling with that!
I am still waiting for your proper mathematics account on why the Continuum Hypothesis is problematic.
As usual from you one gets static for actual answers...just snide remarks.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 03:57 pm
@Albuquerque,
Ok ....wow!...that is the first time entanglement has been mentioned....which is definitely relevant.The question is how does one unentangle oneself? You also mentioned “united”.... what about not being “united”? I am referring to consciousness states here? I refer to united and not united as in synch or not in synch as well when it comes to the 2 off consciousness states that everyone experiences whether they are conscious of it or not.Some people may also know them as being “in the moment” or “not being in the moment”.Understanding the 2 off differing consciousness states is the way to go if one is searching and is the START of OUTWARD meditation rather than INWARD meditation which I am sure you are familiar with.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 04:00 pm
@Albuquerque,
I never said it is problematic (whatever that means). It is unsolvable.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2020 04:04 pm
@maxdancona,
You have totally got it.
Science is just a spectator and is STATIC.If one remains a spectator then one remains static as well.One needs to realise that one is totally embroiled/entangled within the very thing that one is trying to understand from a distance.One will never untangle oneself if one remains a spectator.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 05:42:29