True nature of logic

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
User avatar
Shanks
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 7th, 2022, 6:25 am

True nature of logic

Post by Shanks »

What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe. But what guarantees that a pattern that is true today will not break down tommorrow?
Just because something has happened a certain way every single time we have taken an observation, is it guaranteed to happen the same way the next time?
If an apple is seen to fall down from a tree a million times, is it guaranteed to fall down a million and one-th time?
No, there is no surety it will. Similarly, even if gravity and other modern scientific laws are observed to be true a trillion times, there really is no guarantee it will be true the next day. We just assume it always will. But there is no law in this universe that guarantees that. It seems a basic assumption of science is: there are some basic laws that will always be true
But it is only an assumption, the universe doesn't guarantee it, God doesn't guarantee it.

I think what this means is that, literally everything, is logically possible, and we can never 100% rule out any possibility. Science cannot rule out God, nor can it rule out that I will wake up tomorrow in the body of a lioness. Science only has observations, it doesn't have the rulebook of the universe.
It is based on an assumption, and there is no reason why that assumption must be true.

And this makes me feel scared sometimes. Think. There is no guarantee you will be rewarded for your hard work. No guarantee, even if everything happens right, that you will live a good life. Even if everything happens in your favor scientifically, well there's always a chance the universe says "screw science" and just give you immeasurable suffering randomly. In fact there is no reason why that can't happen, we just assume it won't.

Worst of all, we toil hard, see our friends and family and others work hard, suffer, and pin everything they have on this one basic assumption, which has no reason to be true. For example, a father working his ass off to pay medical bills for his disabled daughter could wake up to find his daughter dead for no reason. Everything he has in his life could crash all in one moment. There is no reason why it can't happen. And it isn't even a game of probability, because probability assumes that past events are linked to the future events, and can be used to make predictions of the future.
But in reality, every event possible must be, "logically", equally likely, since we have no real laws to tell them apart, only the assumption that what happened in the past will also happen the same way in the future. Only an assumption, nothing else.
User avatar
Shanks
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 7th, 2022, 6:25 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by Shanks »

Extension to above:

What this also means, is that a truly logical being will never do anything because it doesn't have any concrete laws to rely on and it cannot logically justify why past observations must be linked to the future either. Equivalently, it may do anything it wishes because there is no reason why one set of actions is better than another. So no reason why doing nothing is better than doing something. They are all equally good options for it. The universe is lawless to it unless it figures out some new information.

Then it means human being are not completely logical beings either. As I type this, I rely on the same assumption that I talked about earlier, and consider this course of action better than others. My actions therefore are completely irrational. There is no way to justify them. It is just that I have a desire, and I'm hoping the said assumption is true and will help me fulfill my desires, even though I cannot logically justify it. My human instincts want me to believe that there is a pattern. In fact my instincts developed like this in the first place because there was a pattern, and because it contained a link to predicting the future. There is still no way to guarantee that the patterns always work, or will continue to work, but biological systems discovered that their best bet to survival was working under the assumption that it will mostly work.

So, we ultimately act based on desires: The unsatisfaction with our current state of being. Science and logic are just ways we devised to help with our desire for a favorable change of state. They mostly worked, because the universe didn't change its laws for whatever reason, and will hopefully (or maybe not) continue to do so. But ultimately human scientific analysis is not logical, it is all at its core based on the assumption that patterns repeat in the future and will continue to do so. And there is no reason to take that assumption and do all the analysis based off of that, but we do it because of our desire, which is irrational and hence a being without desire will simply do nothing (or equivalently, it will do anything at random).
So human beings are not perfectly logical spectators of the universe, instead, to a perfectly logical spectator, they are something completely random, one possibility among countless others, since there are no laws bounding the universe for the perfect spectator who is devoid of desire and can only think logically.

By the way, while we base our lives on this assumption, the possibility that this assumption will always hold is also a scary one. If the universe only follows a set of laws forever, then anything which those laws don't permit cannot happen. In that case, God might not exist, there may not be an afterlife, there may not be a greater purpose, since our laws don't imply any such things. So I like to hope that the laws will break at some point, maybe after my death, maybe at the end of time. And then what will happen? The possibilities are endless, and all equally likely to us, as we don't have information to distinguish different possibilities.

I don't like any of this. As a kid, I learned optimism from the grown ups. I always thought that they had secret knowledge I didn't, which made the world simple and not so complicated, and that's why they were not as puzzled by all these things as I was, and so they could focus on simpler things like money and prestige. But now, I feel that people just have learnt to ignore all this. We are taught to be logical so we can pass exams, do well in our jobs, etc. But nobody really knows why all this works, yet they don't even bother with this question. It is because we really have no answers. We are 100% in the dark, yet everybody pretends, or perhaps even believes that we aren't. And being 100% in the dark is scary. It is also exciting, as in the event that the laws break down, the possibility of bad things is the same as possibility of incredibly good things, and so is the possibility of everything else.

Maybe we wake up after death in a perfect world tailored to our needs and which fulfills all our desires.
Maybe it's eternal hell.
Maybe it's neither, maybe we never wake up at all.
And countless other possibilities, all equally likely.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by LuckyR »

I feel bad that the way things are makes you "feel bad". To my mind this is mostly based on expectations. Those who anticipate that life has a deeper meaning or some sort of cosmic justice or balance are vulnerable to disappointment when they observe the randomness or "unfairness" of life. OTOH, those who accept the lack of any discernable "plan" or deeper meaning and concentrate on the numerous aspects of life that are within their personal control or at least direct influence can enjoy the benefits of that influence and control and thus create a local (as opposed to universal) "plan" (their own).
"As usual... it depends."
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by ernestm »

Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 7:17 am What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe. But what guarantees that a pattern that is true today will not break down tommorrow?
Just because something has happened a certain way every single time we have taken an observation, is it guaranteed to happen the same way the next time?
If an apple is seen to fall down from a tree a million times, is it guaranteed to fall down a million and one-th time?
No, there is no surety it will. Similarly, even if gravity and other modern scientific laws are observed to be true a trillion times, there really is no guarantee it will be true the next day. We just assume it always will. But there is no law in this universe that guarantees that. It seems a basic assumption of science is: there are some basic laws that will always be true
But it is only an assumption, the universe doesn't guarantee it, God doesn't guarantee it.

I think what this means is that, literally everything, is logically possible, and we can never 100% rule out any possibility. Science cannot rule out God, nor can it rule out that I will wake up tomorrow in the body of a lioness. Science only has observations, it doesn't have the rulebook of the universe.
It is based on an assumption, and there is no reason why that assumption must be true.

And this makes me feel scared sometimes. Think. There is no guarantee you will be rewarded for your hard work. No guarantee, even if everything happens right, that you will live a good life. Even if everything happens in your favor scientifically, well there's always a chance the universe says "screw science" and just give you immeasurable suffering randomly. In fact there is no reason why that can't happen, we just assume it won't.

Worst of all, we toil hard, see our friends and family and others work hard, suffer, and pin everything they have on this one basic assumption, which has no reason to be true. For example, a father working his ass off to pay medical bills for his disabled daughter could wake up to find his daughter dead for no reason. Everything he has in his life could crash all in one moment. There is no reason why it can't happen. And it isn't even a game of probability, because probability assumes that past events are linked to the future events, and can be used to make predictions of the future.
But in reality, every event possible must be, "logically", equally likely, since we have no real laws to tell them apart, only the assumption that what happened in the past will also happen the same way in the future. Only an assumption, nothing else.
Hi

Logic is about truth evaluation of statements and propositions. Because of semantic issues it has some elements of epistemology, and the question you ask about statements on the future does sometimes occur in formal logic, although it is really an epistemological one. .

There are two opinions in academia. One holds that statements about the future are evaluated in the same way as inductions. That means the resolution of a statement can only be probabilistic unless the statistical likelihood is null, in which case the statement is false. If the statement is also the conclusion of a proposition, the premises must also be valid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

The other opinion holds that the above perspective is technically accurate, but unreasonable as a method of evaluation for natural language. Generally speaking, if a future event is so likely to occur that one would not reasonably hold it not to happen, then the statement should be evaluated as true, because it is for all intents and purposes the event is certain to occur. Those wishing to define the level of certainty consider the context in which it is stated, now frequently referred to as the statement's DISPOSITION. The common example is the sun rising tomorrow.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by ernestm »

ernestm wrote: November 8th, 2022, 7:31 am
Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 7:17 am What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe. But what guarantees that a pattern that is true today will not break down tommorrow?
Just because something has happened a certain way every single time we have taken an observation, is it guaranteed to happen the same way the next time?
If an apple is seen to fall down from a tree a million times, is it guaranteed to fall down a million and one-th time?
No, there is no surety it will. Similarly, even if gravity and other modern scientific laws are observed to be true a trillion times, there really is no guarantee it will be true the next day. We just assume it always will. But there is no law in this universe that guarantees that. It seems a basic assumption of science is: there are some basic laws that will always be true
But it is only an assumption, the universe doesn't guarantee it, God doesn't guarantee it.

I think what this means is that, literally everything, is logically possible, and we can never 100% rule out any possibility. Science cannot rule out God, nor can it rule out that I will wake up tomorrow in the body of a lioness. Science only has observations, it doesn't have the rulebook of the universe.
It is based on an assumption, and there is no reason why that assumption must be true.

And this makes me feel scared sometimes. Think. There is no guarantee you will be rewarded for your hard work. No guarantee, even if everything happens right, that you will live a good life. Even if everything happens in your favor scientifically, well there's always a chance the universe says "screw science" and just give you immeasurable suffering randomly. In fact there is no reason why that can't happen, we just assume it won't.

Worst of all, we toil hard, see our friends and family and others work hard, suffer, and pin everything they have on this one basic assumption, which has no reason to be true. For example, a father working his ass off to pay medical bills for his disabled daughter could wake up to find his daughter dead for no reason. Everything he has in his life could crash all in one moment. There is no reason why it can't happen. And it isn't even a game of probability, because probability assumes that past events are linked to the future events, and can be used to make predictions of the future.
But in reality, every event possible must be, "logically", equally likely, since we have no real laws to tell them apart, only the assumption that what happened in the past will also happen the same way in the future. Only an assumption, nothing else.
Hi

Logic is about truth evaluation of statements and propositions. Because of semantic issues it has some elements of epistemology, and the question you ask about statements on the future does sometimes occur in formal logic, although it is really an epistemological one. .

There are two opinions in academia. One holds that statements about the future are evaluated in the same way as inductions. That means the resolution of a statement can only be probabilistic unless the statistical likelihood is null, in which case the statement is false. If the statement is also the conclusion of a proposition, the premises must also be valid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

The other opinion holds that the above perspective is technically accurate, but unreasonable as a method of evaluation for natural language. Generally speaking, if a future event is so likely to occur that one would not reasonably hold it not to happen, then the statement should be evaluated as true, because it is for all intents and purposes the event is certain to occur. Those wishing to define the level of certainty consider the context in which it is stated, now frequently referred to as the statement's DISPOSITION. The common example is the sun rising tomorrow.
?Sorry, I should have stated the counterargument to the second opinion.

Advocates of a strict definition of truth in formal logic get into deeper semantic, or more properly stated, 'semiotic' issues. They are concerned that the dispositional properties of the symbols are not explicitly stated, and therefore loosening the definition of truth in this way enables subjectivism.
BalonSwann
Posts: 5
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 4:16 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by BalonSwann »

In my opinion, logic is simply the tool by which we are able to put down on paper and communicate/discuss to/with others our primal insights and empirical observations .
logic is the tool by which knowledge is sistematically organized, and information is conveyed and discussed.
It is the most reliable and effective tool we have, but not the only one, and not always the best.

But logic has no intrinsic ontological value. Because something is logical, it does not mean that it is true or "real" in the-world-of-things, real. Or vice versa.

And if you think that logic has the intrinsic power to "reveal the true nature of things", well, okay, as long as you are aware that it is a legitimate but arbitrary, irrational, and fideistic axiom
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: True nature of logic

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 7:17 am What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe.
I think it is nothing to do with our observations, but that logic is a way of checking or testing our thinking/thoughts, to confirm their correctness and suitability-for-purpose.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by Sculptor1 »

Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 7:17 am What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe. But what guarantees that a pattern that is true today will not break down tommorrow?

No. The emphasis of completely wrong.
Logic is about an analysis of language and need not consult any observations of nature, or patterns in the universe.
It's about reasoning, validity and inference. It's more to do with how we express and describe cohernently.

For example the logic of atheism is about the lack of validity of the means used by theists to demonstrate their creed, not not a claim about the non existence of a thing that cannot exists. It is about the the logical rejection of a poor demonstrated claim for which no observations of god can be made.

Logic in computer circuits represent a complete self referral system of circular arguments as related to pre-designed circuits and algorithms. It's not about making observations. But about predicting with certainty the outputs from known inputs.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: True nature of logic

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: November 8th, 2022, 7:28 pm Logic is about an analysis of language and need not consult any observations of nature, or patterns in the universe.
It's about reasoning, validity and inference. It's more to do with how we express and describe cohernently.
Yes, logic is more about testing or confirming our patterns and practices of thought, not those thoughts themselves.


Sculptor1 wrote: November 8th, 2022, 7:28 pm Logic in computer circuits represent a complete self referral system of circular arguments as related to pre-designed circuits and algorithms. It's not about making observations. But about predicting with certainty the outputs from known inputs.
Boolean logic is one logic; formal logic — the sort that uses all those symbols that I can never get the hang of — is another. But "logic" is also more general, as you describe above.

In computer logic, outcomes are predictable and certain, barring unusual external influence such as airborne transient glitches, and the like. But "logic" is rarely used to describe Boolean logic, except by computer-professional nerds like me.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 7:17 am What is logic? I think it is making observations of the universe, and then finding patterns in these observations to guess the future events in the universe. But what guarantees that a pattern that is true today will not break down tommorrow?
Just because something has happened a certain way every single time we have taken an observation, is it guaranteed to happen the same way the next time?
If an apple is seen to fall down from a tree a million times, is it guaranteed to fall down a million and one-th time?
No, there is no surety it will. Similarly, even if gravity and other modern scientific laws are observed to be true a trillion times, there really is no guarantee it will be true the next day. We just assume it always will. But there is no law in this universe that guarantees that. It seems a basic assumption of science is: there are some basic laws that will always be true
But it is only an assumption, the universe doesn't guarantee it, God doesn't guarantee it.

I think what this means is that, literally everything, is logically possible, and we can never 100% rule out any possibility. Science cannot rule out God, nor can it rule out that I will wake up tomorrow in the body of a lioness. Science only has observations, it doesn't have the rulebook of the universe.
It is based on an assumption, and there is no reason why that assumption must be true.

And this makes me feel scared sometimes. Think. There is no guarantee you will be rewarded for your hard work. No guarantee, even if everything happens right, that you will live a good life. Even if everything happens in your favor scientifically, well there's always a chance the universe says "screw science" and just give you immeasurable suffering randomly. In fact there is no reason why that can't happen, we just assume it won't.

Worst of all, we toil hard, see our friends and family and others work hard, suffer, and pin everything they have on this one basic assumption, which has no reason to be true. For example, a father working his ass off to pay medical bills for his disabled daughter could wake up to find his daughter dead for no reason. Everything he has in his life could crash all in one moment. There is no reason why it can't happen. And it isn't even a game of probability, because probability assumes that past events are linked to the future events, and can be used to make predictions of the future.
But in reality, every event possible must be, "logically", equally likely, since we have no real laws to tell them apart, only the assumption that what happened in the past will also happen the same way in the future. Only an assumption, nothing else.
The short answer is that logic (a priori) is produced by a human mind. A subjective mind (subjective idealism). As such, the most secure form of reasoning is deductive logic (a priori). Yet deduction has many inherent paradoxes. Two quick examples would be the unchanging nature of deduction and mathematics in a world of change. And the metaphysics (abstract a priori concepts) of numbers themselves.

The most fundamental problem is that while deduction is a priori, it takes a conscious mind to compute the formula and understand it. Hence it requires the experience of having an experience to produce its results. So when we talk about the true 'nature of things', a priori logic is not really a priori at all. It requires experience to understand it. Perhaps think of it like time and relativity. Logic could be a similar kind of optical delusion.

To that end, logic has its limitations, as most everything else in a world of existential finitude. It's just a tool that helps us make some 'sense' of the world. A pretty effective tool, nonetheless. Very practical. However, one could still ask, what kind of 'sense' is that? Is logic itself just a means to some end? What is the true nature of reality?

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest— a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.---Albert Einstein
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
MAYA EL
Posts: 177
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: True nature of logic

Post by MAYA EL »

Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 9:12 am Extension to above:

What this also means, is that a truly logical being will never do anything because it doesn't have any concrete laws to rely on and it cannot logically justify why past observations must be linked to the future either. Equivalently, it may do anything it wishes because there is no reason why one set of actions is better than another. So no reason why doing nothing is better than doing something. They are all equally good options for it. The universe is lawless to it unless it figures out some new information.

Then it means human being are not completely logical beings either. As I type this, I rely on the same assumption that I talked about earlier, and consider this course of action better than others. My actions therefore are completely irrational. There is no way to justify them. It is just that I have a desire, and I'm hoping the said assumption is true and will help me fulfill my desires, even though I cannot logically justify it. My human instincts want me to believe that there is a pattern. In fact my instincts developed like this in the first place because there was a pattern, and because it contained a link to predicting the future. There is still no way to guarantee that the patterns always work, or will continue to work, but biological systems discovered that their best bet to survival was working under the assumption that it will mostly work.

So, we ultimately act based on desires: The unsatisfaction with our current state of being. Science and logic are just ways we devised to help with our desire for a favorable change of state. They mostly worked, because the universe didn't change its laws for whatever reason, and will hopefully (or maybe not) continue to do so. But ultimately human scientific analysis is not logical, it is all at its core based on the assumption that patterns repeat in the future and will continue to do so. And there is no reason to take that assumption and do all the analysis based off of that, but we do it because of our desire, which is irrational and hence a being without desire will simply do nothing (or equivalently, it will do anything at random).
So human beings are not perfectly logical spectators of the universe, instead, to a perfectly logical spectator, they are something completely random, one possibility among countless others, since there are no laws bounding the universe for the perfect spectator who is devoid of desire and can only think logically.

By the way, while we base our lives on this assumption, the possibility that this assumption will always hold is also a scary one. If the universe only follows a set of laws forever, then anything which those laws don't permit cannot happen. In that case, God might not exist, there may not be an afterlife, there may not be a greater purpose, since our laws don't imply any such things. So I like to hope that the laws will break at some point, maybe after my death, maybe at the end of time. And then what will happen? The possibilities are endless, and all equally likely to us, as we don't have information to distinguish different possibilities.

I don't like any of this. As a kid, I learned optimism from the grown ups. I always thought that they had secret knowledge I didn't, which made the world simple and not so complicated, and that's why they were not as puzzled by all these things as I was, and so they could focus on simpler things like money and prestige. But now, I feel that people just have learnt to ignore all this. We are taught to be logical so we can pass exams, do well in our jobs, etc. But nobody really knows why all this works, yet they don't even bother with this question. It is because we really have no answers. We are 100% in the dark, yet everybody pretends, or perhaps even believes that we aren't. And being 100% in the dark is scary. It is also exciting, as in the event that the laws break down, the possibility of bad things is the same as possibility of incredibly good things, and so is the possibility of everything else.

Maybe we wake up after death in a perfect world tailored to our needs and which fulfills all our desires.
Maybe it's eternal hell.
Maybe it's neither, maybe we never wake up at all.
And countless other possibilities, all equally likely.
You think exactly like I do that's crazy...I'm sorry...
User avatar
Shanks
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 7th, 2022, 6:25 am

Re: True nature of logic

Post by Shanks »

MAYA EL wrote: January 7th, 2023, 11:21 am
Shanks wrote: November 7th, 2022, 9:12 am Extension to above:

What this also means, is that a truly logical being will never do anything because it doesn't have any concrete laws to rely on and it cannot logically justify why past observations must be linked to the future either. Equivalently, it may do anything it wishes because there is no reason why one set of actions is better than another. So no reason why doing nothing is better than doing something. They are all equally good options for it. The universe is lawless to it unless it figures out some new information.

Then it means human being are not completely logical beings either. As I type this, I rely on the same assumption that I talked about earlier, and consider this course of action better than others. My actions therefore are completely irrational. There is no way to justify them. It is just that I have a desire, and I'm hoping the said assumption is true and will help me fulfill my desires, even though I cannot logically justify it. My human instincts want me to believe that there is a pattern. In fact my instincts developed like this in the first place because there was a pattern, and because it contained a link to predicting the future. There is still no way to guarantee that the patterns always work, or will continue to work, but biological systems discovered that their best bet to survival was working under the assumption that it will mostly work.

So, we ultimately act based on desires: The unsatisfaction with our current state of being. Science and logic are just ways we devised to help with our desire for a favorable change of state. They mostly worked, because the universe didn't change its laws for whatever reason, and will hopefully (or maybe not) continue to do so. But ultimately human scientific analysis is not logical, it is all at its core based on the assumption that patterns repeat in the future and will continue to do so. And there is no reason to take that assumption and do all the analysis based off of that, but we do it because of our desire, which is irrational and hence a being without desire will simply do nothing (or equivalently, it will do anything at random).
So human beings are not perfectly logical spectators of the universe, instead, to a perfectly logical spectator, they are something completely random, one possibility among countless others, since there are no laws bounding the universe for the perfect spectator who is devoid of desire and can only think logically.

By the way, while we base our lives on this assumption, the possibility that this assumption will always hold is also a scary one. If the universe only follows a set of laws forever, then anything which those laws don't permit cannot happen. In that case, God might not exist, there may not be an afterlife, there may not be a greater purpose, since our laws don't imply any such things. So I like to hope that the laws will break at some point, maybe after my death, maybe at the end of time. And then what will happen? The possibilities are endless, and all equally likely to us, as we don't have information to distinguish different possibilities.

I don't like any of this. As a kid, I learned optimism from the grown ups. I always thought that they had secret knowledge I didn't, which made the world simple and not so complicated, and that's why they were not as puzzled by all these things as I was, and so they could focus on simpler things like money and prestige. But now, I feel that people just have learnt to ignore all this. We are taught to be logical so we can pass exams, do well in our jobs, etc. But nobody really knows why all this works, yet they don't even bother with this question. It is because we really have no answers. We are 100% in the dark, yet everybody pretends, or perhaps even believes that we aren't. And being 100% in the dark is scary. It is also exciting, as in the event that the laws break down, the possibility of bad things is the same as possibility of incredibly good things, and so is the possibility of everything else.

Maybe we wake up after death in a perfect world tailored to our needs and which fulfills all our desires.
Maybe it's eternal hell.
Maybe it's neither, maybe we never wake up at all.
And countless other possibilities, all equally likely.
You think exactly like I do that's crazy...I'm sorry...
Woah. Good to know :)
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021