We need both thinking and observing. When it comes to an instinctual banality (“humans as animals”), observing may be more important than thinking, but when it comes to the human culture/s and especially to science (science belongs to the Occidental culture), thinking is more important than observing (this does not mean that observing is unimportant), because it was the thinking that led to the scientifical (again: scientifical!) observation. Humans are humans because of their culture/s, naturally spoken: because of their brains. Many animals are much better observers than humans. What humans made to better oberservers was the enablement of the universal use of their brains which enabled them to a specification that led to scientification and at last to science itself. So the cause of the scientifical observation is thinking, the typical human thinking, caused by their brains and their culture/s - interactively.
Hume dealt with this kind of Causality a couple of centuries ago allready… but it’s probably to much to expect that people on a philosophy board read and know something about actual philosophy.
Yes. And if scientists are already corrupt and depend on other corrupt humans, then the probability becomes higher and higher that they say that, for example, “‘X’ has not been proven false”, although it has been proven false.
Hume and Kant are good examples when it comes to the topic of this thread, because Hume and Kant are contemporaries of the enlightenment era - Kant even of two eras: the enlightenment era and the next era -, and many aspects of RM:AO are similar to many aspects of the enlightenment era, especially: rationality, metaphysics, its ontology, and science. After the enlightenment era this aspects got lost, became mere parts of science, or got into the fairway of nihilism.
But all that historical facts did not change anything of the importance of those aspects.
Kant was merely reigniting the flame of rational intellectualism left over by the Greeks (“rational intellectualism” vs nonsensical intellectual masturbation and speculation so common in the masses).
x-coordinate <=> centuries (0 <=> the year 1800)
y-coordinate <=> degree (magnitude)
y = ½^x <=> philosophy
x = 2^x <=> nihilism
Currently (x = 2 ) the degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 16 times higher than the degree of philosophy (y = ¼); the current degree of philosophy (y = ¼) is 32 times lower than it was in the year 1500 (x = —3 and y = 8), the current degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 32 times higher than it was in the year 1500 (x = —3 and y = 0,125).
When mathematics and physics left philosophy they became scientific disciplines. Contemporarily the degree of nihlism was very low, almost imperceptible. Currently the degree of philosophy is as low as nihlism was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, whereas the degree of nihlism is as high as philosophy was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, - One can have the impression that nihilism is an awful revenge.
If we want to save the philosophy, then we have to fight against the nihilism. The nihilism is an enemy of both philosophy and science, but nevertheless the number of nihilistic “philosophers” has been exponetially increasing, followed by the number of nihilistic “scientists”.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point, you’ve probably never thought about this issue, much like virtually everyone else. I am, I think, the first one to have asked this question.
It seems only three or four people have understood even the possibility of this question. The human race ultimately oozes with piety before “The One”, or “The Universe”. It is awesome how obedient they are to the idea, which is perfectly illogical.
Let me give it another try. Let him hear who has ears.
I do not mean to question the idea of causality, or the predictability or certainty that science can derive from the principle of causality. I do not wish to question whether the sun comes up tomorrow, etc. Reading Hume makes me cringe, he is so naive and banal, but I have endured it in my time.
What I mean simply is to question that idea that all influences all; i.e. that there is a “The Whole”.
This is more an issue to take up with Spinoza, who is the chief mechanic of the argument for this Whole.
Yes, U2, One Love… the whole. I think the cosmos is infinite, and when dealing with the infinite, you need division of labor to represent it all (an infinite number of beings each without the total picture), you can’t have one being process, say, the counting numbers, only an infinite number of beings can do this. There’s also no infinite tree, that is the biggest one… there are an infinite number of trees where one is always bigger than the other… but one whole tree doesn’t subsume all these other trees. It’s like Plato’s division of labor.
The universe is oriented towards community and not the ONE, the ONE WHOLE. And it doesn’t make sense in many respects to talk about the universe as anything other than an unfathomnable multiverse.
I think that “homogeneity” is the wrong word for what you are talking about. The idea that all-affects-all is something that science accepted very long ago. It seems intuitively obvious. To me, it doesn’t really matter whether it really is true or not, so I didn’t bother with forming a proof.
Science accepted the notion merely because it was accepted that all gravity and electric fields were infinite. Beyond that presumption there would also be the fact that everything is within at least one other field that is being affect by another. And that kind of chain would not be able to be broken without getting extremely far away from all things. Even the galaxies don’t get that far away from each other.
In RM:AO, it would be a little easier to prove. Every affect in AO travels a straight line influencing every other affect that happen to be crossing that line that that time. So, for example, every photon traveling between the stars affects countless other photons on its journey simply because they crossed paths. And then because each of those photons was affected by the first, whatever minor affect they obtained carries on to be a part of their own affect upon countless others traveling perpendicular to their paths. The number having been affected by the first grows exponentially at an almost infinite rate.
Due to the fact that there can be no space anywhere that is void of affectance, it would be quite impossible for that one photon or affect to travel any distance at all without some minuscule portion of its influence being spread throughout infinite space. Of course the amount of influence that it has had grows exponentially lower at an almost infinite rate.
And the kind of influence a propagating affect has on transverse traveling affects is merely one of time delay. And that is how the gravity field gets formed. It is through the affectance field or gravity fields that each and every affect, no matter how small or great, propagates a degree of affect upon every other affect. Snuff out one single match and through time the entire universe knows about it.
I read it. As already indicated on other threads, you and I have a different mind when it comes to the concept called “infinite”. But I agree that the “labor” is certainly distributed. And so should the governance be.
I stated my very clearly, would you mind stating yours and why you believe it? I gave you the reasons I believe mine. We agree that all affectance must be different from all other affectance… do you believe though, as I mentioned earlier in the thread that this distinction is infinite? I’m curious.
Another point to consider is the idea of affectance between truly far away dimensions, even if, it could be argued, regardless there is some measure of it everywhere, op would not be the limit of unmeasurable its reduce it to nil?
As infinite distance is approached, would not affectance also reduce to nothingness, making the idea virtually non existent?
size=200[/size]