True.
Rules are spiritual. The spiritual side of language (not the physical side of language: sounds, phonemes etc.) contains the consistency of language, thus logic, the father of mathematics. Yes. Also, logic is the father of ethics. Logic comes before ethics. It is possible to understand logic without ethics, but it is not possible to understand ethics without logic.
Thinking on your own isn’t something to be proud of if what you think on your own is stupid. I hope you understand this.
Causation isn’t the same as correlation. If there is something intelligence relies on, it is correlation and not causation.
The ability to predict requires that there is a correlation, and not necessarily causation, between variables. That they are statistically dependent. And even this might be too strict of an understanding of what intelligence requires in order to operate. I am not sure. What I am sure of is that it does not require causality.
You should Google what causality means. Then, you should Google what other people have said on the subject long before you were even born (e.g. Bertrand Russell in his “On the Notion of Cause” which you can read online for free.)
You are simply not right.
You need to stop with your posturing and listen carefully to what is being said. And what is being is said is that just because you actively explore reality (i.e. venture into “the great unknown”) does not mean you will find what you want to find (i.e. order.) Whoever thinks so – and clearly, you think so – is a blind optimist. Not something to be proud of.
I am not against exploring reality. I am against making conclusions that are not based on evidence but merely on personal preference. If you think that reality is ordered NO MATTER WHAT then that means that you’re not guided by evidence but by your personal preferences.
Your logic can be used, or rather abused, by any theist. God simply exists and whoever says otherwise is simply a solipsist who is unwilling to go out searching for Him. Instead, these non-believers prefer to stay within their comfort zones and believe that there is no God.
I am pretty sure that you are utterly incapable of explaining what you mean by “outside world” and “reality”. To you, these are entirely mystical terms.
You have an unrealistic understanding of how intelligence works. You think that it is something that it is not. Something rather idealistic. And whenever someone honest comes along and makes a claim that intelligence is something less than what you think it is, you have no choice but to accuse them of inferiority in the form of subjectivism, solipsism, idealism and so on.
It is actually YOU who are denying reality because you are placing your models of reality, which are supposed to be a dependent variable, in front of sensory experience, which is supposed to be an independent variable. For example, you think that the universe is ordered NO MATTER WHAT. In other words, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be chaotic. Not because that’s what evidence suggests but because you want it to be that way.
So please, don’t give me your ten cent lectures on the effects of sheltering when it is pretty clear that it is YOU who suffers from sheltering. You are so used to the universe being one way (i.e. ordered) that you cannot so much as imagine what it is like for the universe to be another way (i.e. chaotic.)
You think that the universe is MADE for intelligence. You think that the universe CARES about intelligence. You think that it is so preocuppied with intelligence that it makes sure that every event has a cause.
Can you quote me saying that? You have to prove that you are not hallucinating. Because that’s what I think you’re doing.
We have nothing but senses to inform our actions. They are the ground upon which models of reality are constructed. To think otherwise, to think that models of reality are more fundamental than the senses, or that something else, such as “intuition” or “sixth sense”, is more fundamental, is the definition of subjectivism (or solipsism, as you prefer to call it.) And that’s exactly what you’re doing.
It is ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS to speak of anything beyond, anything that transcends, our experience. That is not solipsism. That is realism.
The word “empiricism” comes from the Greek “empiria” which means nothing other than experience.
You are a solipsist because you think the universe functions according to your expectations.
There you go. You believe in meaningless concepts.
The universe does not begin.
The universe does not end.
This is not because the universe is infinite.
Because nothing is.
This is because the universe is a meaningless concept.
It is meaningless because it does not refer to anything specific.
The word “universe” is often described as the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. But only what was, and even then, only what is known to us, can be said to be meaningful. Everything else is meaningless.
The universe is a meaningless concept because it transcends personal experience.
Only what refers to our personal experience is meaningful.
There you go. Models of reality predicate sensory information.
That only proves you’re a retard. Every scientist will agree that intelligence only produces “educated guesses”.
Intelligence is not a supernatural ability that allows us to travel to the future in order to sense what’s going to happen.
You just described yourself and you did so perfectly.
Sounds to me like you fear thinking on your own, which means you cling to others (Bertrand Russel) to do it for you.
You’re missing the point and obviously have reading problems. I didn’t claim that correlation is the same as causation, or even similar. That’s you, saying it.
Causality means that there are functions, forces, operations, and interaction in existence that humans attempt to make sense of, and find patterns in. The causation part is objective. The correlation part is subjective. It is usually the case that smarter and most intelligent humans can make sense of, and see patterns within, events and interactions that average humans cannot. That is “science” and scientists, above average intelligence.
That you don’t understand the basics of Causality, is your own problem. You should listen and read carefully instead of jumping to conclusions like a petulant child.
The point is that some patterns and phenomena are essentially universal. They are the same everywhere. Some axioms hold true in every circumstance. And when that is the case, people depend upon them, and refer to these as “Natural Laws” or “Nature” or people even inversely call them “Divinity” or gods. What they represent are that humans, any other life form, can navigate essential patterns in every environment. Gravity, for example, exists everywhere. There are no exceptions, even in dead space far away from massive planets and objects. Because all mass produces force. And the more of a vacuum there is, in dead space, the more that a minuscule mass will produce a force from further distances.
This is something that, as a Solipsist, you will deny or “trust science” with. You reject objectivity and “outside human experience”. To me, it’s not “optimism”, it is rather extension of scientific premises, and firmly grasping that “Natural Law”. In fact the greatest thinkers, intellects, and philosophers can go much, much further, and produce greater theories. Because a greater understanding of Natural Law (Nature) will produce greater results and manipulation. Geniuses discover “new” patterns (latent) on a microscopic level, for example, and they may or may not coincide with previous theories.
Science is a progression of theories, some are revised, some are thrown out entirely. But “Natural Law” is predicated on Causality. Because causality is how every human attempts to make sense of life and existence. You can call “correlation” if you are so inclined to your solipsistic compulsion, but that doesn’t change the topic. You’re essentially confusing the two concepts. I already mentioned this in the division between “external” or “internal” causes. You, being a solipsist, either have a very difficult time separate external from internal causes, or, you’re simply incapable of doing so. Perhaps you lack the degree of intelligence or mindset required, to differentiate causes in such a way.
Perhaps, to you, all “causes” are internal, representing your solipsistic malady and mental illness.
You’re projecting. I’m breaking all the topics and concepts down, for you.
That’s not what I think. So you’re projecting. You’re obviously wrong.
The universe, Existence, is neither ordered or chaotic, until cognition and intelligence, a living organism becomes conscious, and begins to make sense out of things. So order and chaos is relative to the living organism and its cognitive ability. A stupider and simpler cognition, existence will seem very chaotic and unpredictable. Imagine the life of insects, birds, unintelligent animals. Life will appear very complex, incomprehensible to them, whereas a smarter animal, or a human, can make sense of things that they cannot. Hence intelligence is a severe and exponential survival advantage. Order and chaos are relative to intellectual ability, relative to intelligence.
Higher intelligence is obviously indicative of “Higher Order”. Thus humans not only adapt to environments (external order), but go further and manipulate environments according to personal preferences and comfort (internal order).
No… you are the one implying that “Uncaused events” can exist. That is mysticism.
You’re clueless.
Senses must be processed. What do you think synthesizes sensory information and data, except intelligence, and reason?
It is the reasoning ability, the core cognitive function, that makes sensory information and experience “meaningful”. You’re missing the core mechanic. You’ve overlooked the essence of empiricism.
I’ll help you further though. What happens after sensory information is synthesized and reasoned by any and every organism that evolved a cognition and nervous system? They become memorized, memories. Memorization comes after direct experience. Rationalization is a further evolved product of intelligence. Memories are compared, over time, and increasingly with new synthesis and experience. Hence reasonability and intelligence is even more critical after experience expands to include memories, of the past. But it’s always the core mechanic. Synthesis is always required. That’s how any organism “makes sense” of things, finds direction in life, navigates environments, walks around, chews and eats food, etc.
What’s meaningless is “uncaused causes” which you’ve already admitted to.
You’re contradicting yourself.
If the universe has no beginning, no end, and is timeless, then it is infinite by definition, and therefore you agree with me. Lol.
We’ve already mentioned what “the future” is, a set of predictions and projections, based upon intelligence and rationality, based on order.
You’re wrong.
I’ve been outside the maze. And when you have no constraints, there is little left to do, except to build a new maze.
I don’t think you’re capable of differentiating between real contradictions and apparent contradictions.
I am contradicting myself, that is true, but I am doing so merely because I am using words without sufficient care.
In order to say that something has a beginning or that something has an end that something must be well defined, and also, that something must be something to which these words can be applied. The concept of universe is not well defined – it is meaningless – so it makes no sense to affirm or deny that it has a beginning or that it has an end.
What does the word universe refer to? Can you point with your finger at something and say “this is universe!” and then point with your finger at something else and say “this is not universe!” You can’t, right? It refers to nothing specific.
It’s the same problem with the concept of infinity. Can you give me an example of an infinite number of things? You can’t, right?
Whenever these words are used you can be sure, because that’s all they indicate, that the speaker has trouble expressing himself in a precise manner.
I was speaking of “uncaused events” and not “uncaused causes”. The concept of “uncaused event” is pretty clear. It refers to any event for which we cannot identify a cause.
You can declare anything to be mysticism . . . just because you say so.
You don’t understand something because you’re a retard? Well, it’s mysticism, bro.
Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing mystical about events for which we see no cause. Maybe you should look into Quantum Mechanics, I don’t know. I don’t think it’s necessary. But when you’re too stupid, there is no other alternative.
That’s what you want to believe.
Because it gives you comfort.
The reason I am mentioning him is because I am an anonymous.
It’s very difficult to trust what I am saying if what I am saying is something that is unpopular.
It’s easier to simply point at someone famous and say “look, this guy thinks exactly the same as I do”.
That’s the only way I can get some support.
And when someone is stupid and needs a lot of convincing, then it is a must.
You can think whatever you want to think. If you want to think that correlation is “subjective” and that causation is “objective” and that there are causes everywhere even when you don’t see them who am I to ruin your fun? Believe anything you want, I don’t care. But I will have no choice but to expose the subjectivism that underlies your thoughts. There is no avoiding you will get upset. Because you think yourself objective and smart and great and whatever. But I have to do it.
Again, that’s not a given. Nothing is a given. Everything is conditioned by sensory information. Because sensory information is fundamental. If there are causes, then there are causes. If there are no causes, then there are no causes. The universe isn’t obligated to have a specific form. The universe does not have to be ALL CAUSES or ALL NO CAUSES. It can be anything it wants to be. Don’t tell the universe what to be.
You expose your degeneration over and over again all the while maintaining this pretense of being above it.
That’s what you’re doing. You’re a bit full of yourself. And there is plenty of evidence for it. You’re obsessed with being the next great thing, aren’t you?
So you’re an absolutist. You think there is such a thing as “absolute truth”. I am very glad you admitted this.
You are right.
Because you say so.
Whatever you say.
I am sure you are right . . . in your mind.
I will only say this . . . because I have to, not because I am right.
So hear me out . . .
Blind people do not see things that people with vision do.
For example, blind people do not see sky.
But we know sky exists, right?
So it follows that whenever you say something does not exist, it merely means you are blind.
You think there is no God?
Well, that’s because you are blind.
More or less, that’s your way of thinking.
Which, as anyone sane can see, is ridiculous.
Randomness does not mean ignorance, you idiot.
Randomness means absence of patterns (i.e. repetitions) in information.
Noone defines randomness the way you do – apart from you.
Ignorance is merely absence of information.
You can be extremely informed and still see no patterns.
It’s like saying that negation is ignorance.
We deny the existence of things (e.g. the existence of God) merely because we are ignorant.
It’s stupid beyond belief.
You are wrong.
It’s in your name.
Randomness is the degree to which information can be compressed. Basically, it refers to incompressibility or irreducibility of information. No amount of intelligence can help you compress information that cannot be compressed. The only way out of such a situation is to believe that you are missing some information.
You think that all randomness is merely apparent i.e. that all randomness is merely due to lack of intelligence (the ability to recognize patterns in information) or due to lack of information (that would reveal patterns.)
I don’t deny that there is such a thing as apparent randomness. What I deny is this delusion that all randomness is merely apparent.
It’s fairly easy to demonstrate that there are incompressible strings. Which would mean that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence.
Consider the following numeric sequence:
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
It’s very easy to see that this sequence can be compressed to something like “32 repetitions of ‘01’”.
Now take a look at the following sequence:
1100100001100001110111101110110011111010010000100101011110010110
How would you compress it?
There appears to be no way.
Let’s say you want to predict the next number in the sequence.
In the first case, that would clearly be 0.
But in the second case, that would be . . . exactly what?
Now, tell me, is that because you are stupid?
Or because the numeric sequence lacks order?
Consider that there are exactly 2^n bit strings of length n. In order to compress any of these strings, and to do so without any loss of information, you must find a shorter bit string that fully represents the original. This means that the length of the string must be less than n. The number of bit strings that can compress strings of length n is exactly 2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + … + 2^(n-1) = 2^n - 1. This means that the number of bit strings that can compress bit strings of length n is lower than the number of bit strings of length n. In other words, not every bit string can be compressed. At least one must be incompressible.
This proves that incompressible strings exist. That incompressible strings exist means that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence. This means that you cannot use the “lack of intelligence” excuse for every random string of information. Instead, sometimes, you must rely on the “lack of information” excuse. This excuse, however, runs into the problem of induction. How much effort do we have to expend exploring reality before we can make a judgment call as to whether the relevant aspect of reality is random or non-random?
Basically, you have absolutely no clue what randomness is.
Universe means Everything. So yes you can point to anything and everything and say “this is universe”. The ideal that there is something “outside, before, after” the universe, is what physicists and scientists conjecture about, hence the “Big Bang Theory” which is a postulation of “the beginning” of the universe.
You should know this by now. This is elementary quality, common sense, knowledge. That you don’t know this, or are feigning ignorance, will make me and everybody else lose what little respect there can be, for your intellect. I can only hope at this point that you’re playing the fool. Or you are a fool. Either way these lessons on causality are a bargain for you.
Infinity is a process of change, hence it is always demonstrated. A person can keep counting and counting, hypothetically forever. Or a computer could. Chaos theory depends on the concept of infinity, as does change. Change is eternal, “Flux”, the fundamental condition of existence. Everything is always changing. Hence humans evolved intelligence, as do other organisms, to anticipate, find direction, and predict the universe and particular environments.
That’s your problem here. You can’t understand the observation that just because doesn’t identify the cause to an event, doesn’t mean the event has no cause.
That’s also why you are solipsistic. Just because you don’t understand something, or I don’t understand something, doesn’t make it uncaused, or impossible. That’s foolish. It’s ignorance. And you are admitting to your ignorance casually. To claim that events “have no cause” is absurd, which is to say, you’re ignoring whatever causes that led to the event anyway. Some people do, correctly and accurately, identify the causes to events and processes. You ought to admit this, with your reliance on science and Bertrand Russel. He would agree with me. Logic means that some minds and brains, are suited to some tasks and environments, and thus can identify causes within certain sets of problems, or even language, that other brains and minds would not associate. Because the ‘logic’ of one person is not the same as others, although people can reach the same conclusions, and agree upon certain premises.
Logic is a series of conditions, when granted truth, people can follow one cause to the next, to the next, to the next, and understand why and how any particular event occurs.
In science, this is most obvious with Chemistry and chemical reactions, physical processes which have clear and immediate evidence, results, when inoculated with other elements.
If you cannot defend your assertion about “uncaused events”, then it is mysticism, the same as ‘god’ or divinity.
Go ahead and explain yourself. You already did. “I don’t know the cause of this or that event, therefore, it has no cause.” That is retarded. You seem to be an irrational person.
I don’t cling to dead, nor living, authorities. Philosophy is about becoming your own authority, concerning the essential qualities of life and existence.
It’s about speaking for yourself. If you need dead philosophers to argue on your behalf then that’s your problem.
I probably know more about what Bertrand Russel wrote, and meant, than you do. So it’s a moot point. His critical points were/are about how logic is tied up to language mechanics and how people communicate limits what they can relay about logic and rationality.
What a cop-out. You obviously have limits when attempting to understand things, and this topic particularly. If nothing else then you should learn about limits to knowledge, Epistemology. You are the subjectivist to imply, repeatedly, that “because we don’t know something” then it must not exist.
That’s not my argument. See how you cleverly insert “God” into the analogy??? That’s not my doing; it’s your doing. What I am saying is that human knowledge, wisdom, experience, any given perspective, an individual, has limits. People have blind-spots in vision. Just because you don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s you position, Solipsism. What I’m saying, about the unseen and unknown, is that it must follow the rules and natural law to which humanity has axioms, insofar as those axioms have held true historically, and they have. For example, you cannot produce counter-evidence as to the theory of gravity, relativity, or the physical explanations of mass, matter, conservation of energy, and the like. And because you cannot counter-argue them, and show no significant nor deep knowledge of them currently, you don’t know shit. You obviously argue from a position of ignorance.
Newton’s Laws still reign supreme. You cannot demonstrate or really even imagine any circumstance that mass or energy is created or destroyed. Thus the axioms are given, and beyond common doubt. People trust them. You trust them, without even knowing or realizing it. And the fact of the matter is the physical theories are dependent upon “the objective” world, and how the human mind attempts to rationalize, and apply logic to, existence. It’s not a matter of subjectivity. It’s not “dependent upon my experience” or “your experience”.
You are an obvious novice in philosophy when you admit ignorance about scientific essentials. Science and philosophy have already covered the matter of sensation and experience. Berkeley, for example, studied the human cognitive and perceptual blind spots in depth. It’s very obvious to those who are educated, then, that what one person cannot sense does not coincide with another, necessarily. Hence this is why the philosophy of “Perspectivism” and scientific “Relativity” emerged.
You have a long, long way to go, before talking about concepts that you barely know an ounce about.
You’re wrong.
Computers can calculate what humans cannot. That still doesn’t mean that what a human incorrectly guesses is “impossibly random” is actually so.
Perhaps ‘Pi’ is a truly random and chaotic number, but that’s about it. Almost everything else, a computer can calculate.
A process of change is not a thing to exist, but a concept.
Neither could. Hypothetically, neither could a pink unicorn. Hypotheticals do not exist.
Chaotic systems are simply dynamic systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions and they need not be infinite.
Not yet it ain’t. When we get to infinity, then we’ll see if you were right. Obviously existence could never get there to verify the claim because it’s not a place that can be reached.
Existence has no meaning without a contrasting backdrop of nonexistence. Existence itself implies nonexistence. Eternal existence is an oxymoron. If a process existed eternally, then where did the eternally existing process come from? It’s self-causation an infinity ago and, if it’s not, then it had a state of nonexistence (ie a beginning). Existence is an alternating state of existence/nonexistence and even that process must have had a state of nonexistence.
All things exist; nothing does not exist.
There is no such thing as the “non-existence” of a thing. If it can be conceptualized then it must necessarily exist. Existence includes everything, even the ideals of mankind.
There are no limits to existence, absolute freedom, hence why and how the concept of infinity can be apprehended.
How do you know there are no limits to existence?
Everything is dualistic and there are no such things as eternally existing singularities inside this universe.
Therefore 0 does not exist.
So, we have the codependent pairs: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3,…, infinity - infinity.
Infinity - infinity is not defined and can be equal to anything, including infinity. So infinity cannot be a codependent pair with itself and can only be codependent on 0 because the only thing there can be infinite amount of is 0 and therefore infinity doesn’t exist because it depends on nonexistence in order to exist. An infinitely big box is the same as a box that doesn’t exist.
Infinity x 5 = undefined.
Infinity x infinity = undefined.
Infinity x 0 = 0. That is the only way it works because an infinity of nothing is still nothing.
Since infinity is dependent upon the existence of nothing in order to exist, then it does not exist.
Don’t know where you are getting those results. Both of those evaluate to infinity according to the math books.
Phyllo is right.
If infinity x infinity = infinity x 5, then 5 = infinity.
Or if infinity x 5 = infinity, then 5 = infinity/infinity?
Infinity x 5 = infinity
Infinity x 6 = infinity
So 5=6?
Anything x infinity is undefined according to math books, including 0, but I disagree because an infinity of 0 is still 0 and it’s the only case that it works that way.
But if someone wants infinity x 0 to be undefined as well, then it’s fine by me… either way, it doesn’t exist.
Show us the books.
Why does it matter? Are you arguing that things written in books are true because they are written in books?
Also, did you miss the part of my disagreeing with the math books?
So even if you do produce a book, I won’t give a crap.
I already proved infinity doesn’t exist here:
Therefore 0 does not exist.
So, we have the codependent pairs: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3,…, infinity - infinity.
Infinity - infinity is not defined and can be equal to anything, including infinity. So infinity cannot be a codependent pair with itself and can only be codependent on 0 because the only thing there can be infinite amount of is 0 and therefore infinity doesn’t exist because it depends on nonexistence in order to exist. An infinitely big box is the same as a box that doesn’t exist.
Infinity x 5 = undefined (or infinity/ doesn’t matter).
Infinity x infinity = undefined (or infinity/ doesn’t matter).
Infinity x 0 = 0. That is the only way it works because an infinity of nothing is still nothing.
Since infinity is dependent upon the existence of nothing in order to exist, then it does not exist.
Another way is to determine the opposite of infinity. Since 0 is smaller than the infinitesimally small, then 0 is the opposite of the infinity big. Therefore they are codependent pairs where one can’t exist without the other (just like true/false, yes/no, on/off, up/down, etc). Since we already know 0 does not exist, then we know infinity does not exist. Every other number has a codependent opposite that exists.
That’s the last nail in that coffin.
Anyone who doesn’t believe it now is simply being religious worshipping their infinity god 
Okay. I won’t waste any more time.
Seren, you seriously fail to understand what “infinity” means, and certainly are clueless concerning “infinity times infinity”.
You’ll be preaching Jesus to me next. 
You got it all wrong.
Pi isn’t random. It’s a computable number.
But the great majority of real numbers are uncomputable.
The same applies to bit strings.
Most bit strings are incompressible.
What this means, in plain terms, is that order is an exception.
It’s not the rule (the way shelterted people, such as you, think.)
You might want to look into algorithmic information theory. Very good stuff. Far deeper than anything you have to say. Most of what you say, anyways, is quite simply banal, and not only that, but also wrong.
The word “everything” only makes sense in relation to a finite set of elements. If there is no such a relation, no such a set, then it makes no sense.
The universe isn’t such a set. Personal experience, however, is. The word “universe” does include personal experience but it goes beyond it. It includes not only what is known (and what can be enumerated) but also what is unknown (what cannot be enumerated.)
You can say “everything from my personal experience” or “everything I know”.
These are legit statements.
You cannot, however, say “everything that exists” or “everything unnkown”.
Because there is no set that contains everything that exists and everything that is unknown.
You can point with your finger and say “this is a tree!” and “this is not a tree!” You cannot, however, point with your finger and say “this is universe!” and “this is not universe!” You might be able to say “this is part of the universe!” but then you wouldn’t be able to say “this is not part of the universe!”
I don’t need your respect, moron.
What you’re saying is common sense, I agree. And the reason it is common sense is precisely the reason why you should have assumed that I know and understand what you’re saying.
It’s not that I don’t understand your banalities.
It’s that you do not understand what I am saying.
You are quite simply CONFUSED by my statements.
And instead of trying to understand them you are simply projecting this confusion onto me.
It’s a classical tactic.
Change certainly isn’t infinity.
Change can be roughly defined as a difference between two successive states in time.
It is a special case of difference, which is a type of relation between two data points.
I understand that, moron. It is you who does not understand that just because you are searching for causes does not mean you will ever find them
You’re a broken record, my friend.
Yes, that’s why I am a solipsist – in your fantasies. Because you are hallucinating that I do not understand that just because I see no causes does not mean that further research won’t reveal them.
Whatever, my friend.
No, he won’t. He would agree with me.
He would agree you’re autistic.
Here’s a quote from him:
You are saying it’s up to me to defend the obvious (that there are events for which we see no cause) against what is not obvious (that there are causes even when we don’t see them.)
“I don’t know the God who created humans, therefore, humans are not created by God”.
You’re saying this is retarded.
Good stuff.
It appears me that not even dead philosophers can help me convince retards.
You know jackshit.
You’re routinely misinterpreting what I am saying.
This is why discussing anything with you is futile.
For example, I never said that becaues we don’t know something that it must not exist.
I simply said that any word that refers to something we don’t know is meaningless.
There’s a HUGE difference between the two statements.
But you simply don’t understand them.
You are posturing.
Your statements are quite simply wrong.
That’s the only thing that matters.
As for who’s more creative, I am pretty sure it’s not you.
You present no discoveries regarding the previously unknown.
You repeat what many other naive people repeat.
I do because you’re a believer.
The word God refers to a mechanism that governs the universe.
In other words, it refers to someone or something that determines the fate of everything that exists.
It’s the belief that the universe is ordered.
Does not matter if this mechanism is sentient or not.
I am not interested in what you think you are.
I am only interested in what you really are.
And you really are a believer.
That’s not what you are doing.
What you are doing is you are saying that causes exist even when we don’t see them.
You are quite simply CONFUSED.
My position is that you’re a retard . . . who is incapable of understanding other people’s positions.
What you say is my position is NOT my position.
That is your MISINTERPRETATION.
When you set out to explore reality, fuckface, what happens is you end up expanding your experience. In other words, you end up collecting evidence.
You are so stupid you cannot make a difference between collecting evidence and finding causes.
Fuckface, when you go out to collect some evidence the content of that evidence would be as it is independently from what you want it to be. Do you understand this? That means that there might not be any causal relations at all. Causal relations are CONTAINED WITHIN evidence. They are not transcendent or precedent. They are either there or they are not.
You are quite simply dumb.
That’s what you are.
It’s hilarious.
You are deciding IN ADVANCE what evidence you are going to collect.
You do not let evidence be what it is.
No, you decide that it must have certain form.
You decide that it must reveal causal relations.
THAT is solipsism, fuckface.
I am not against exploring reality, fuckface.
I am against DIRECTED exploration of reality.
That’s what Christians do.
They look for evidence that will prove the existence of something they have previously imagined.
That’s what you’re doing, fuckface.
You decide in advance there are causal relations and then you set out to find them.
Because they MUST be somewhere.
Just because you say so.
What you’re saying is that the universe must be the way you want it to be.
It is not allowed to be the way it wants to be.
No, everything must fit your expectations.
That IS solipsism, my friend.
To think that something MUST happen simply because you predicted it with 100% certainty.
You are so stupid you think that your predictions CREATE reality.
Fuckface, the content of our sensory experience is not dependent on our sensory experience. That is EXACTLY what I’ve been telling you all long. The content of sensory experience can be ANYTHING. In other words, sensory information can take ANY FORM. This means it can be ordered (compressible) or chaotic (incompressible.) It’s up to the universe. But our models of reality, which themselves are part of our sensory experience, are dependent upon certain parts of sensory experience. That is if they are grounded in reality. It is actually YOU who are saying that sensory experience must have a specific form i.e. that it must be ordered. You are the one saying that if the gravity on Earth has been 9.8 m/s^2 for who knows how many years in the past that it cannot suddenly change tommorrow. You ARE the solipsist, fuckface. You and also James who thinks that the universe flows i.e. that there are no discontinuties.
I am pretty sure I am whatever you say I am.
And you are the next great philosopher.
Alongside James S. Saint who is the only sane Homo Sapian.
You posture too much.
Strictly analytically, existence refers to one of the following things:
Non-existence, on the other hand, refers to predictions that we consider to be incorrect.
And that’s all these words mean.