Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by gater » March 4th, 2020, 8:32 pm

Steve - this was taken straight from Google - Einstein's theory of special relativity says that time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you move relative to something else. Approaching the speed of light, a person inside a spaceship would age much slower than his twin at home.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1978
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » March 4th, 2020, 9:22 pm

Greta wrote:However, anyone claiming absolute certainty here is kidding themselves.
RJG wrote:Greta, here is my take on this --

An infinite universe is as "absolutely certain" as "X<X is impossible". If you accept "X<X is impossible", then you also accept "the universe is infinite". ...those that accept the former but reject the latter are the ones (in my opinion!) who are truly "kidding themselves".
Greta wrote:Your problem is you have snipped the wrong part of the post to address.
Greta, I was not referring to the other parts of your post. I was referring specifically to your term "absolute certainty". My point (or "my take") is that there is nothing more certain than that of a logical impossibility, and specifically to "X<X", which is implied in a "finite universe".

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by gater » March 5th, 2020, 2:17 am

I am absolutely certain that one plus one is 2, that earth, and the life on earth evolved, that everything alive will eventually die, and that the Universe has always been here. Im sure I could name more, but you get the idea.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » March 5th, 2020, 4:07 am

gater wrote:Steve, we would have better results if you asked 1 question at a time.
Steve3007 wrote:Regarding the Special and General Theories of Relativity: Do you know the series of observations and theories, beginning with the experiments of Galileo, and continuing through the experiments of people like Michael Faraday, that led to the things that are proposed by those theories? Note: I'm not asking you whether you agree with those propositions (you've already told us the answer to that question many times). I'm asking whether you know why they were made.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » March 5th, 2020, 4:35 am

Greta wrote:...So the true formula OFPY* = X + X + (X-Z) + Y + Z...
Thanks for picking up my point and running with it. You've made it your own! :D

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1978
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » March 5th, 2020, 10:07 am

Greta wrote:Lots of declarations and notions of some self-evident "logic", but there is nothing here of worth compared to those who actually know what they are talking about such Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, Lawrence Krauss or Brian Greene. Even an educated anti-BB advocate, James Peebles, wouldn't care for your approach or ideas. His point is that he wants more evidence before accepting cosmic inflation, although others think there is ample.
Science and "more evidence" have absolutely no say-so in the matter. Only "logic" can tell us of the origins of the universe. And "logic" tells us that the universe is 'infinite'. So no need for all the great scientists to spin their wheels in search of "more evidence", when the logic is clear, and the answer is in front of our faces.

Greta wrote:Many don't like the term "big bang" because it was not an explosion. It was, rather, the Big Expansion.
There cannot logically be a "big bang" nor an "expansion" of this universe, for there is no 'where' (space) to expand into / bang from. "Wheres" don't yet exist. They don't exist before they exist, nor do they exist where they don't exist.

X<X is logically impossible. Something can't exist before it exists. Something can't exist outside of itself. There cannot be a "beginning" to this universe, for that would require a "time before time" [X<X] (and a "space before space"). There cannot be an "expansion" of this universe, for that would require a "space outside of space" [X<X].

If the Universe (the totality of everything; space-time-matter) exists, then it has always 'infinitely' existed. It never "began" and it has no "where" to expand. Logically, it can be no other way.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 5th, 2020, 10:15 am

Greta wrote:
March 4th, 2020, 6:23 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
March 4th, 2020, 12:01 pm
If we deny that the prog rock old-timers Genesis are reforming [X + X + X + X = 4X] then we are denying a logically certain truth, because I decree that those words written in English are semantically equivalent to the equation written in square brackets.
Hmm. Since Phil has a bad back and can't drum, his son, Nicholas, is playing the kit (at only age 18!). John Bonham's son has rare drumming talent too. Some interesting genetic things going on there. They also have the wonderful Daryl Stuermer on guitar (whose work with Jean-Luc Ponty was stellar).

But these are not original Xs. Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford can be rightly termed as X, but Phil is actually (X-Z), but is compensated for by his son (Z). Daryl S, of course, is termed as Y, not being an original member.#

So the true formula OFPY* = X + X + (X-Z) + Y + Z

Pedantic, I know, but I prefer to be a stickler with these things ;)
But, but ... let's get to the important stuff. What about Peter Gabriel? As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you. 🤪
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » March 5th, 2020, 10:28 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:But, but ... let's get to the important stuff. What about Peter Gabriel? As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you.
Sorry, but you're going to need to add a random algebraic identity in square brackets after it to be able to claim that as a logically necessary truth. That's just how it is. I don't make the rules; I just follow them. I suggest [G=G].

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 5th, 2020, 10:34 am

RJG wrote:
March 4th, 2020, 9:22 pm
My point (or "my take") is that there is nothing more certain than that of a logical impossibility...
Oh yes there is. Objective Reality is the master; the reference. It is what actually is. Your logic is merely a (human-created) symptom of your struggle for understanding.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 5th, 2020, 10:44 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 10:15 am
But, but ... let's get to the important stuff. What about Peter Gabriel? As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you. 🤪
Steve3007 wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 10:28 am
Sorry, but you're going to need to add a random algebraic identity in square brackets after it to be able to claim that as a logically necessary truth. That's just how it is. I don't make the rules; I just follow them. I suggest [G=G].
There's always a nit-picker! 😋 Here you go:

As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you. 🤪

[G<G]
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Wossname
Posts: 230
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Wossname » March 5th, 2020, 11:05 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 10:44 am
Pattern-chaser » 18 minutes ago

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑47 minutes ago
But, but ... let's get to the important stuff. What about Peter Gabriel? As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑34 minutes ago
Sorry, but you're going to need to add a random algebraic identity in square brackets after it to be able to claim that as a logically necessary truth. That's just how it is. I don't make the rules; I just follow them. I suggest [G=G].
There's always a nit-picker! Here you go:

As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you.

For you unreconstructed prog rockers I will mention that Jethro Tull are touring again this year.

Ian Anderson seems to be the only survivor of a very long and varied line-up.

I wouldn’t dare any algebraic expression. Steve?

I’m off to remind myself of “Locomotive Breath”.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » March 5th, 2020, 11:17 am

I wouldn’t dare any algebraic expression. Steve?
As I recall, Ian Anderson used to play two flutes while standing on one leg. So:

It is logically certain that playing two flutes leads to standing on one leg [F + F - L = 2F - L]

(Whenever I attempt satire it always gets out of hand.)

Wossname
Posts: 230
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Wossname » March 5th, 2020, 11:23 am

Steve3007 wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 11:17 am
Steve3007 » 4 minutes ago

I wouldn’t dare any algebraic expression. Steve?
As I recall, Ian Anderson used to play two flutes while standing on one leg. So:

It is logically certain that playing two flutes leads to standing on one leg [F + F - L = 2F - L]

(Whenever I attempt satire it always gets out of hand.)

You sir, are an unquestionable mathematical genius as well as having excellent taste in music.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 684
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 5th, 2020, 11:45 am

Wossname wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 11:05 am
For you unreconstructed prog rockers I will mention that Jethro Tull are touring again this year.
Oh, good oh! I may go and see them again. 🤔 ...except that, the last time I saw them, Ian's voice was clearly and badly, er, buggered. I'd like to think he just had a touch of laryngitis, and that his voice still remains as it was. 🤔

Wossname wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 11:05 am
I’m off to remind myself of “Locomotive Breath”.
Very wise.

Steve3007 wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 11:17 am
As I recall, Ian Anderson used to play two flutes while standing on one leg.
I've never seen him do that, although I have seen Dave Jackson of Van der Graaf Generator playing three saxes at the same time, if that counts? 🙂

Steve3007 wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 11:17 am
(Whenever I attempt satire it always gets out of hand.)
You too? 🙃
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9078
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Greta » March 5th, 2020, 4:41 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 10:15 am
Greta wrote:
March 4th, 2020, 6:23 pm

Hmm. Since Phil has a bad back and can't drum, his son, Nicholas, is playing the kit (at only age 18!). John Bonham's son has rare drumming talent too. Some interesting genetic things going on there. They also have the wonderful Daryl Stuermer on guitar (whose work with Jean-Luc Ponty was stellar).

But these are not original Xs. Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford can be rightly termed as X, but Phil is actually (X-Z), but is compensated for by his son (Z). Daryl S, of course, is termed as Y, not being an original member.#

So the true formula OFPY* = X + X + (X-Z) + Y + Z

Pedantic, I know, but I prefer to be a stickler with these things ;)
But, but ... let's get to the important stuff. What about Peter Gabriel? As for chronological line-ups, there is only one: the one that went from "Trespass" to "The Lamb...". This is Absolute, Objective, and not up for argument. Thank you. 🤪
Fair point! If Peter Gabriel is A and Steve Hackett is B, then we might have OFPY = (X + X - A + B + (X-Z) + Y + Z).

Divide by X to simplify :)

Post Reply