There's no 'truth' in Science. I'm sure you know that the philosophy of science (and scientists who know about the philosophy of science) are open that; 'science doesn't deal in proofs'... Science deals in probability and utility. Science looks for explanatory and predictive models... Accuracy, not 'truth'.

Built in to the philosophy is that things can be disproven (i.e. Falsifiability), but they can never be proven, or shown to be 'the truth', just highly explanatory and highly predictive.

Inductive reasoning and Abductive reasoning (both used in the scientific method) can never 'prove' anything, as I'm sure you know. They do help us make conclusions that account for observations, data and experiments (but that's not the same as 'proving' something).

(That's not denigrating science because I'm a Theist, I used to have to explain that to Theists when I was an Atheist, because 'Why does scientific conclusion change over time?' was either explicit or implicit in rejecting things like Evolutionary Biology, or other arguments I was making).

Yep, couldn't agree more. Loads and loads of bs in philosophy- consider for example the entire subject of metaphysics.

Aristotle

Plato

I don't really have a third but I'm leaning more towards Edgar Cayce (Somewhat a philosopher)

If you like Edgar Cayce, have you heard of Emmanuel Swedenborg?

Twenty years ago (my late teens), I was interested in Plato and Socrates. Maybe the most important lesson I learned from them was that there is always more to learn. The story about Socrates going all over Greece to find the wisest man only to discover that everybody in a position to be the wisest was full of chit because they thought they knew everything already always stuck with me.

In recent years I have had a fascination with Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky (and the other existential writers and philosophers). Their greatest lesson is that our greatest strength is our choice. As long as you're still conscious and in control of your faculties, you are in control of your actions and how you respond to the things that happen to you, both good and bad. You also have a chance to make a real difference in the world in how your choices affect others.

I have not. Tell me more about the bloke. Edgar Cayce really is more then just a bloke; his teachings of metaphysics is beyond any comprehension especially regarding medicinal properties.

Laotse
Konfucius
Karl Marx

And a few others which I didn't read yet.

Basically, most Christians believe the following:
1) You have free will and your future is not predetermined.
2) You can pray and God has the power to and does (if he wills it) change your future.
3) Other souls and an objective reality really exist and God treats these souls equally.

This presents some issues with relativity because n people/creatures/conscious observers all have souls, and God supposedly perceives their prayers and acts. But relativity of simultaneity tells us that there is no consistent notion of them praying "at the same time" globally if they wish to change their futures. Thus, there is no "now" in terms of prayers from the pov of God. Person A's future is intimately related to person B's past and vice versa, etc. All the observers are interconnected in the sense that one's future affects another's past since they exist in the same universe. This immediately creates a problem since each person's future is not predetermined by assumption. But each person's past is known to each observer. And God would know each person's past too since God is all knowing (except in matters of free will ?!?). So, then your future is predetermined. By all rights, the discussion ends right there, but let's say persons A, B, and C are in a triangle. Also, say person A prays and God responds and changes his future. Well, person B and person C have pasts that happened to them. God perceives their prayers too, and in changing A's future, he changes B and C's past...You might try to imagine God responding to prayers sequentially along some timeline, but the entire point of relativity of simultaneity is that such an objective timeline for all observers cannot be defined. God basically has to see this universe as an unchanging 4D shape. And he must then know, at least approximately, all pasts and futures of all observers. He basically can't hear your prayer along some timeline and then change your future responsively. He knew all prayers from the get go. This means you can't really have a free will and it means all your prayers are meaningless because he can't really change things for you. If he chooses to change things for you, he has to break everything in the sense that something definitely happened and also didn't happen for some observer. This is one of the reasons I do not believe in God. There are a few others as well.

Now, there are potential adjustments to this that still allow for God, but you have to reject some of the core tenets of Christian philosophy. Obviously, the simplest thing is to assume solipsism with no objective reality. You could also just argue that relativity is an incomplete and wrong theory.

Basically, the real heart of the issue is that we like to imagine God observing everything happening "at the same time" for all people. But this cannot be the case.

This has bugged me for a long time, and I'm not sure if there is a nice way to reconcile this. I'm also reasonably sure I'm not misunderstanding the implications of relativity here, but it is possible that I am. Really tired rn so will post more tomorrow.

Quality thread, saved for later

He was an 18th century scientist and inventor, who began having mystical experiences. He didn't know what has happening to him until he had an experience meeting The Lord in one state. For the rest of his life he had mystical experiences, wrote them done... However, he also developed an (unorthodox) Theology.

His books are a combination of him relaying his experiences, and presenting his Theology.

What caught my attention was research into Near Death Experiences, and the strong parallels between Swedenborg's experiences and Theology. I was shocked because Near Death Experiences weren't being seriously researched and written about until Raymond Moody wrote Life After Life in 1975. Yet in the 18th century Swedenborg was writing extensively about many things that Near Death Experiencers talk about... However... I don't believe that Swedenborg's Theology or Experiences are the 'final word', but he is a favourite Theologian.

You can download a translation of his books for free here (Heaven And Hell, seems to be the #1 book that people read when they first get into Swedenborg)...

https://swedenborg.com/bookstore/e-books/

This youtube channel (from the same organizaton that provides the books) are how I first learned about Swedenborg...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...1I_1beIVVVQTQf

(They have 2 main shows called;News From HeavenandSwedenborg and Life, I'm not really a fan ofNews From Heaven, but I highly recommend the Swedenborg and Life series.)

Regarding no. 3, it really depends what you mean by treating everyone equally.What's actually really interesting reading that, is that I've been interested in Near Death Experience (NDEs) testimonies and research on and off for years, you bring up some of the things that I've heard or read in Near Death Experiencer (NDE) testimonies. In the testimonies that I'd read or heard, the experience of Linear time whilst in our material body and reconciling it intellectually with their experience of space-time in the afterlife, is exactly something that they find hard to explain and understand.

Some relevant things from NDE testimonies and research...

1) They talk about how ineffable the experience is overall, but they also say that the experience of space-time in the afterlife is not the same way that they experience space-time when they are in their material body. That's one of the consistent things I've heard, from experience after experience.

2) Many talk about how interconnected we are, that everything we do has an affect on everyone and everything, and that it's very important for us to realize it.

3) Some talk about the power that prayer has, and them seeing or experiencing the power of prayer.

I'm guessing you've read some of the ideas focused on Quantum physics that offer an explanation, but weren't impressed by their plausibility?

Like these for example;

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...sion/67710.htm

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-d...ually_b_895041

Seems like these dudes are just over-thinking chit tbh.

Regarding the thread title, I pretty much only have one;

Alain De Botton- The 'Therapeutic philosopher'. He uses philosophy to console, and help people be happier and kinder.

I highly recommend this documentary from Alain...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g

This is the youtube channel of the philosophy organization that he started...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7I...f5Z3zKxnZvTBog

You know the foundation of science is "what we know now"

****aroos however many years ago thought electrons were the smallest funademental particles, but as weve gone along weve found smaller, and smaller particles like quarks. How was the belief that electrons were the smallest true? It was literally a belief at the time that didnt go far enough. Using the same premise, what if we havent gone far enough today? You could have used math models to explain electrons based on the information given, but the information ended up being wrong. Simultaneously, it didnt mean the math was wrong at the time. Just limited in scope

Care to expound upon the qualia of consciousness?If you break things down far enough, i dont see how anything is accurate. Letters are made up symbols representing something just as numbers are made up symbols represting something

Opinions might actually be the only accurate thing tbh [philosophy].

Numbers might explain everything in the classical world, but certainly not in the quantum world.

I dont believe youve ever studied bio or neuroscience or psych enough to pontificate on theories in that field

You ever think that your "pre-determined" mindset is largely the source of your lack of success? I know for a fact, regardless of whether or not its true, that people who believe they have some sort of control over their lives are more successful. Literally just the idea you have against it could be the source of your problems. Just as you do on the misc, i believe you take your logic based knowledge and apply it to too many areas upon which you dontactuallyknow. It makes a hell of a lot of sense that such a hardcore math believer would believe in determinism. Math is so hard on quantifying anything and everything, it even rears its head on things it doesnt know

Also could make a lot of sense why people want to believe in math, it provides a comfort in a largely unexplainable world, and theres a discomfort in the uncertainty

Nietzsche

For his views on strength, overcoming adversity, women, society ect.

eod8989 is the greatest philosopher of the modern era. His theory on 2012 still puzzles me to this day. Absolutely brilliant.

holy fuk man go outside.

Thread was solid on the first page. What a shame it got derailed on page 2.

hegel - hegels synthesis is everything imo. here's the dumbest version ever- a baseball is a baseball. this is the hegelian "thesis". when we say there's the baseball, we are also saying, there's NOT a football, there's NOT a giraffe, ad infinitum. this is hegelian "antithesis". the "synthesis" then is marriage of these two into a new thing or vector. a thing is a thing, but also all of the negative "space" (real, symbolic, imaginary). inherent in its being is also the things that it is NOT.

wittgenstein - blue and brown were seminal, the attempt to perfectly describe all things, and later the realization of the duck rabbit. words are just a tool.

kant - "n the 'Transcendental Aesthetic', Kant used transcendental arguments to show that sensory experiences would not be possible if we did not impose their spatial and temporal forms on them, making space and time "conditions of the possibility of experience".

2020 is the year of German Idealism tbqh.

+1 for Marcus Aurelius. Here's a brilliant lecture on him:

it is the goat tier and i could even swap schelling for witt

One thing I’ve learned by reading many philosophers is that none of them had all the answers. They were just as lost as all of us. Many did lay out some deep analysis, but all in all, none of them had the answers to the deepest of questions.


To my deepest questions.



What are we and why are we here?

hegel has all the answers

I don't accept that quantum theory allows prayer to take effect. We do not control outcomes, and the quantum theory shows us they are fundamentally random. You can pretend God is controlling every possible outcome, but it is far fetched to me.

Infinite energy.

To progress towards that which we are through experiences.

Quarks are not "smaller" than electrons fyi.

Electrons and quarks, for our purposes, are point particles. Electrons have far less mass...

I believe in approximate determinism. Fundamentally, outcomes are random due to quantum theory. I believe in the idea that all particles have "free will" in the sense of them having outcomes not a function of their pasts. But that is a far cry from philosophical free will in the sense of a consciousness allowing autonomous action to influence these outcomes.

Nothing in biology contradicts physics, and math is more than numbers fyi. "Math believer?!" Is there anyone who doesn't believe math?!

I guess I’ve read so much that is so plausible much of which is contrary to the other; personally I have have learned enough to know that I can not know.


What helps me deal with whatever this thing we call life is about a 50/50 mix between Alan Watts and Jordan Peterson

But that is just a brief limited description. Both of those guys can be found on youtube.

theres a nietzscheanism "wisdom places bounds on knowledge"