Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 08:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So, let's start slowly.
- Can two mutually exclusive claims be true simultaneously? Yahweh is the one true god, Allah is the one true god. I don't think so.

ummmmm .... yeah. You do realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all the other Abrahamic religions all worship and revere the same God whether they call it Yahweh or Allah or my big fat dick, right?

Hmmm, I don't think all of them would agree. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 06:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  ummmmm .... yeah. You do realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all the other Abrahamic religions all worship and revere the same God whether they call it Yahweh or Allah or my big fat dick, right?

Hmmm, I don't think all of them would agree. Consider
Allah is the Aribic word for God. They are both scared to call their all loving god by name because it might smite them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 07:37 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 06:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  ummmmm .... yeah. You do realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all the other Abrahamic religions all worship and revere the same God whether they call it Yahweh or Allah or my big fat dick, right?

Hmmm, I don't think all of them would agree. Consider

Their dogmas do. ... Goddam Islam recognizes, appreciates and understands Jesus as the Prophet predecessor of Muhammed more than the fucking Christians do. And ManlyGirl pointed out to me that "my big fat dick" was appropriate 'cause it's every bit as imaginary. Bechased

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
06-06-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 07:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hmmm, I don't think all of them would agree. Consider

Their dogmas do. ... And ManlyGirl pointed out to me that "my big fat dick" was appropriate 'cause it's every bit as imaginary. Bechased

I think Buckminster would say something about the Allah being Yahweh hypothesis being false as Allah is actually a Moon God not the Hebrew God of the Army.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
06-06-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 07:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think Buckminster would say something about the Allah being Yahweh hypothesis being false as Allah is actually a Moon God not the Hebrew God of the Army.
Allah
Quote:Allah (English pronunciation: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤˈlˤɑːh] ( listen)) is the Arabic word for God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 07:43 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 07:48 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have even addressed those. That's another example of non-responsiveness, throwing in distractions.

So, no, I haven't set out to disprove that statement. However, it does not appear that objective moral obligations can be derived from first principles, only derived moral obligations. Do you have a list of undeniable first principles?
First principles may be eternal, but human formulations with language for human needs will not be precise or eternal. Formulations are mostly made against objections, such as nihilism, we say "reality does not exist" and try if that holds, that's how many principles were arrived at.
However, I think this is a good start. Frankly, all we need for foreseeable time are the first three and then the Universally Preferable Behavior, which is more complex, but logically sound. This isn't exact science, it's enormously useful even in such a simple form.

[Image: patarticle.PNG]

I know the fourth one is suspicious (God!) We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Thus creation can not refer to the universe as a whole, but rather manipulating already existing matter and energy with finite energy budget.
This also means that the universe had to go through a singularity at some point, to avoid infinite regression. Everything else can be derived from that, as it provides some of links between space, time, energy and matter. If we try to define God, man and universe as distinct objects, we fail. There is nothing but a hierarchy of macroworlds and microworlds and the singularity. (I make a big point of this in my little thesis, however I work with multiple universes. I'm so grateful that physicists believe in singularity, it saved me from the turtles all the way down problem.)

The fifth "statement" is just badly defined and begs too many questions. I have already defined good and evil and universal morality. (UPB)

You can try to find more, define the principles in depth, get technical. But what we really need to do is to pursue consistency in human life and relationships and that is a moral obligation. I think it works, we grounded human knowledge and consistency in first principles and putting it to practice (to not behave inconsistently) is the ultimate moral imperative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  First principles may be eternal, but human formulations with language for human needs will not be precise or eternal.

What a stunningly facetious cop-out.

Way to make things utterly unfalsifiable, I guess...

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Thus creation can not refer to the universe as a whole, but rather manipulating already existing matter and energy with finite energy budget.
This also means that the universe had to go through a singularity at some point, to avoid infinite regression. Everything else can be derived from that, as it provides some of links between space, time, energy and matter. If we try to define God, man and universe as distinct objects, we fail. There is nothing but a hierarchy of macroworlds and microworlds and the singularity. (I make a big point of this in my little thesis, however I work with multiple universes. I'm so grateful that physicists believe in singularity, it saved me from the turtles all the way down problem.)

I seriously doubt you have any coherent understanding of the actual physics involved.

Prior experience leads me to believe you've simply seized on a couple convenient buzzwords.

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The fifth "statement" is just badly defined and begs too many questions.

At least you recognize that.

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I have already defined good and evil and universal morality. (UPB)

No, you haven't.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 10:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Ah, it's you.
(07-06-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What a stunningly facetious cop-out.

Way to make things utterly unfalsifiable, I guess...
Don't worry, it's falsifiable. Stefan Molyneux tests natural language logical arguments and principles all the time without any special semantics. There is so much bullshit in the world, that no great precision is needed to start chipping at it. The opposition is so weakened and beaten, that abusers make no special effort to hide their manipulative bullshit when in privacy of families. I get surprised by Moly's revelations most of the time, I would never thought of the things he says, but after he points them out, they're kind of obvious.

(07-06-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I seriously doubt you have any coherent understanding of the actual physics involved.

Prior experience leads me to believe you've simply seized on a couple convenient buzzwords.
You should read "Stalking the wild pendulum" by Itzak Bentov. He describes cosmology and consciousness WITHOUT studying math or physics, as he proudly admits. You'll breathe out the sulphur smoke. And you know what I did? I didn't even read Itzak Bentov Laugh out load

I like it when I DON'T read a philosopher, write my own stuff and then my own stuff turns out to be the same - or better, sometimes. Or more specific, if I aim for compatibility with men of science. Singularity is quite an obvious thing. However, one thing I don't understand is, how can a physical object be infinitely small, or how a finite mass objects can be concentrated into an infinite mass singularity. Is the infinity literal? If so, isn't it creating mass out of nothing? How can there be an intermediary phase between finity and infinity? Does it have something to do with getting squished past the Planck length and then for all practical purposes everything is infinite or infinitesimal?


(07-06-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, you haven't.
Yeah, the whole argument is in my document, but it's like 25 pages of pure text (not English) and it's very interconnected.
I see you don't provide any comment. What is the problem, would you turn out to be evil according to my definition? Do you value science more than humanity? That might be a bit of a problem Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Ah, it's you.
(07-06-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What a stunningly facetious cop-out.

Way to make things utterly unfalsifiable, I guess...
Don't worry, it's falsifiable. Stefan Molyneux tests natural language logical arguments and principles all the time without any special semantics. There is so much bullshit in the world, that no great precision is needed to start chipping at it. The opposition is so weakened and beaten, that abusers make no special effort to hide their manipulative bullshit when in privacy of families. I get surprised by Moly's revelations most of the time, I would never thought of the things he says, but after he points them out, they're kind of obvious.

Presuppositionalism: not just for theists any more!

Give me a break.

(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I seriously doubt you have any coherent understanding of the actual physics involved.

Prior experience leads me to believe you've simply seized on a couple convenient buzzwords.
You should read "Stalking the wild pendulum" by Itzak Bentov. He describes cosmology and consciousness WITHOUT studying math or physics, as he proudly admits. You'll breathe out the sulphur smoke. And you know what I did? I didn't even read Itzak Bentov Laugh out load

Why should I read the ramblings of a wilfully uneducated man?

Does he say a single coherent thing? Does he say a single testable thing? How would you possibly know, since you didn't even read the damn thing?

That in no way answers my observation that you know nothing about physics. It seems that at best you're claiming you don't need to know about something to talk about it. Good luck with that attitude.

(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I like it when I DON'T read a philosopher, write my own stuff and then my own stuff turns out to be the same - or better, sometimes. Or more specific, if I aim for compatibility with men of science. Singularity is quite an obvious thing. However, one thing I don't understand is, how can a physical object be infinitely small, or how a finite mass objects can be concentrated into an infinite mass singularity. Is the infinity literal? If so, isn't it creating mass out of nothing? How can there be an intermediary phase between finity and infinity? Does it have something to do with getting squished past the Planck length and then for all practical purposes everything is infinite or infinitesimal?

The way to answer real physical questions is not just to make up your own answers because feels.

You can't say singularities are "an obvious thing" and then immediately say you don't understand them. That doesn't make any sense.

Singularity refers to the limits of current understanding. A black hole is not infinitely small; it has a definite size. Mass is one aspect of mass-energy, which is conserved, but that doesn't mean what your naive intuition might think it does.

I say for the thousandth time that it would be of great use to you to actually study the rudiments of physical theories. Dismissing them out of hand is a singularly useless attitude.

(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yeah, the whole argument is in my document, but it's like 25 pages of pure text (not English) and it's very interconnected.

I see no reason to believe that you of all people have established a universal objective system of morality, when millions of people in history have tried and failed at just that.

The probability is extremely small and the burden of proof immense.

(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I see you don't provide any comment.

Why should I?

You don't really listen to comments, as amply demonstrated by your thorough mischaracterisation of DLJ's initial responses.

(07-06-2014 10:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What is the problem, would you turn out to be evil according to my definition? Do you value science more than humanity? That might be a bit of a problem Consider

A), that's stupid, and B), fuck you, because that's stupid.

I get all the smarmy recto-cranial condemnation I need from theists, thanks.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
07-06-2014, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 12:12 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 06:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have even addressed those. That's another example of non-responsiveness, throwing in distractions.

So, no, I haven't set out to disprove that statement. However, it does not appear that objective moral obligations can be derived from first principles, only derived moral obligations. Do you have a list of undeniable first principles?
First principles may be eternal, but human formulations with language for human needs will not be precise or eternal. Formulations are mostly made against objections, such as nihilism, we say "reality does not exist" and try if that holds, that's how many principles were arrived at.
However, I think this is a good start. Frankly, all we need for foreseeable time are the first three and then the Universally Preferable Behavior, which is more complex, but logically sound. This isn't exact science, it's enormously useful even in such a simple form.

[Image: patarticle.PNG]

I know the fourth one is suspicious (God!) We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Thus creation can not refer to the universe as a whole, but rather manipulating already existing matter and energy with finite energy budget.

Given the difference in laws of physics between present day and Planck time, what on earth would make you think the currently observed laws of physics applied prior to the universe?

If quantum physics were common sense, we'd all be quantum physicists.


(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This also means that the universe had to go through a singularity at some point,

The universe "had to go through" a singularity? Are you talking about Big Crunch/Big Bang oscillating universe theory, or do you think the universe predates the universe?

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  to avoid infinite regression.

Name one problem presented by infinite regress, that you're unaware of an epistemological solution to.

Tell us why an infinite chain of causal events causes any one problem.

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Everything else can be derived from that, as it provides some of links between space, time, energy and matter. If we try to define God, man and universe as distinct objects, we fail. There is nothing but a hierarchy of macroworlds and microworlds and the singularity. (I make a big point of this in my little thesis, however I work with multiple universes. I'm so grateful that physicists believe in singularity, it saved me from the turtles all the way down problem.)

Which is actually a nonissue. There would be no change if there was an infinite chain of causes, any more than there's a change if there's an infinite number of future events up to and past the heat death of this universe.

We even have multiple perfectly functioning theories of knowledge that assume infinite regress happens, and say "so what?"

(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The fifth "statement" is just badly defined and begs too many questions. I have already defined good and evil and universal morality. (UPB)

You can try to find more, define the principles in depth, get technical. But what we really need to do is to pursue consistency in human life and relationships and that is a moral obligation. I think it works, we grounded human knowledge and consistency in first principles and putting it to practice (to not behave inconsistently) is the ultimate moral imperative.

Do we really have to talk about WHY the Categorical Imperative is a complete and utter failure?

[Image: original.gif]

Is this an ethics 101 class?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: