And I might be here explaining yet again the distinctions I make between those things able to be brought down to earth [like exploring conflicting goods on this side of the grave] and those things which are clearly less amenable to that [like grappling with life after death or the existence of existence itself].
Exactly!! But then most of us haven’t experienced a landing on the Moon.
Nobody experienced anything even remotely prior to 1959. Then a large number of people experienced it in a variety of ways.
The video speculates about a reality that [as of now] is beyond Greene’s capacity to demonstrate other than within an intellectual contraption based on his own theoretical understanding of and assumptions about spacetime.
On the other hand, the videos of actual astronauts landing on the actual moon allow us to experience it “vicariously”, sure. But that’s not quite the same as being the astronauts themselves. And then there are those who still insist the whole experience was “faked” by the U.S. government. Now, we either have access to demonstrations “down on Earth” that convince us the landings did in fact occur, or we don’t. But what actual demonstrations are available that would allow us to determine definitively if Greene’s conjectures would in fact occur?
A retort about me again. It’s like you are human yo-yo. One post you are up making intelligent observation about something, then the next post you are down fulminating about one or another alleged defect of mine.
If you recognized what you do in these posts, then that would be progress.
In other words, If I concurred with your own assessment of what I do in these posts. Trust me: I get that part.
No, I’m suggesting that until we have a complete understanding of the relationship between spacetime and the existence of existence itself there will be conflicting theoretical conjectures about how mere mortals here on planet Earth ought to understand it. Let alone demonstrate to others that how they think they understand it is how all rational men and women are obligated to understand it.
Your point can be summed up as “You can’t demonstrate anything.”
Until we have a complete understanding of existence itself, any demonstration about anything in the interim would seem to be necessarily problematic.
You tell me: How could this not be the case?
It would be like the residents of Flatland somehow acquiring evidence of the third dimension. What then about the parameters of their “reality”?
Or if somehow we on Earth were able to acquire evidence that we did indeed live in a Matrix or in a Sim world. What then about the parameters of our “reality”?
All we can do [in the interim] is, in our day to day interactions, continue to make attempts to close the gaps between what we think we know is true “in our heads” and what we are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all of us.
But the “objective truth” here will always be predicated on what is still to be known about the ontological nature of existence itself.
And then [re God or Nature] the extent to which there is also a teleological component here.
Thus:
Many, many, many things it would seem [can be demonstrated]. I think it can be demonstrated that you and I exist. That ILP exists. That this thread on ILP exists. That Don Trump is president of the United States. That the Vatican exists. That Bush 41 just died. That an understanding of the laws of physics have allowed us to think up and to create lots and lots of amazing technologies.
Bullshit. You can’t even demonstrate the sequence of time. There is no past, present and future. It’s all the fucking same. That means :
I always existed. IPL always existed. The Vatican always existed.
Trump was president. Trump is president. Trump will be president.
Bush 41 isn’t even born yet. Bush 41 is alive. Bush 41 is dying right now. Bush 41 was/is/will-be always dead.Do you get how stupid your position is??
Look, I’m the first to admit that, intuitively, Greene’s conjecture seem to be completely absurd.
But what do I know about spacetime next to him? What do you know?
Just as intuitively I am still convinced that [up to a point] I choose my own behaviors. Only night after night in dreams I’m convinced I am choosing them then too.
All I can do here is to keep pointing out that your petulant reactions allow me to convey a conjecture of my own: That you seem more intent on pinning me to the mat because my own frame of mind is construed [psychologically] by you to be a threat to your own precious I linked somehow to your own precious objective morality linked to your own precious rendition of God linked to your own precious belief in autonomy.
But how ridiculous is that, right?