Re: The Solution To The Mystery
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:07 pm
Lausten wrote: TazAnastazio wrote:
Monster wrote:TazAnastazio, are you close to publishing your theories and conjectures in some physical form, or perhaps an online publication other than this forum?
Are you kidding me ... and piss off the wrong people ?! No thank you, just posting here so if and when somebody does publish something, you my "friends" will be proof I said it first
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
Okay, you didn't specifically say "Nazis", but close enough
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,...
The Earth is in the center of the universe... so be it.
I mean what is organized religion without the hierarchy, rituals, confessions, communions, priests, imams, pastors etc. etc. Oh, let's not forget those who rather "imagine above the only sky..." Who don't believe in "live and let live..." but in "live and let die..." there is plenty of fanaticism energized from TRUE ignorance.
As far as the scientists are concerned, they don't have to conspire, all they need to say is that tour work sucks, who would people believe...
Which brings to mind... wouldn't light require energy to travel for 12 billion years ?
Well a novel would work, but a novel requires a plot, time and money, neither of which I have.
Here is an idea, maybe one of you friends, can help me write it, filling in the scientific details
All I got ro do is convince you of the beneficial outcomes of such an endeavor. That is not any easier ( Mat - thew ).
Re: The Solution To The Mystery
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:25 am
Disclaimer : These are my OWN theories. Some are right, some are wrong, for others it is still unknown or debatable. As time goes by I'll be researching the subject and make the necessary corrections. This is not a scientific paper based on research ! This is the work of a PHILOSOPHER ! I find it challenging to conceive the idea, before I read it somewhere else. PUTTING MY NAME ON AN IDEA, BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE CONCEIVES IT AND PROVES IT ROGHT, that would be a bonus ! Their is risk to that ! BUT TO THE PIONEERS BELONGS THE GLORY, NOT MUCH GLORY FOR THE SQUATTERS ! Somehow like this, PHILOSOPHERS grasped with their imaginations GREAT IDEAS, upon which scientists built, and others learned ! FEEL FREE TO CONTRIBUTE !
THE INFINITE, IN SEARCH OF THE ULTIMATE TRUTH !
The Infinite has no shape nor size, no beginning nor end, no limits and no gaps. "Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite, as it encompasses every unit, every stage, every existence and every concept. When humanity refers to the idea of "God", what other concept could have such characteristics attributed to by humanity, other than the Infinite ? Any other traditional god/superior intelligence/existence/being/concept would evolve from the Infinite and would be finite.
Every form of existence, every intelligence, energy and matter, form/evolve from the Infinite and de-form/dissolve into the Infinite. Every existence has a purpose. The ultimate purpose of intelligent existence is to bring about positivity to counterbalance negativity, both of which are emerging properties/outcomes of actions and reactions that bring forth existence. This is what existing is, serve a purpose to administer things within our environment within the Infinite. The purpose of life is knowledge. Knowledge is passed to the future generations; knowledge and the right actions prove us able for further function within the Infinite and to serve a further purpose within the Infinite, till we dissolve/de-form back into it.
Negativity springs from selfishness which is the result of self-interest. Self-interest is necessary for every existence to exist. Because an intelligent existence recognizes the limits in its environment, and the limits of its own existence, due to self-interest, said existence may become selfish. Without self interest we would not care to exist, yet because we realize that we will only exist for a limited time, wanting to make the best of our existence, we become selfish and behave negatively to others. Negativity and positivity are the result of the interaction of the various forms of existence among themselves and with their environment within the Infinite; an example is humans interacting with gravity. Without gravity we would not be able to stay and survive on earth, and because of gravity, when we fall we hurt ourselves and even die.
Infinite minute spherical particles (no other shape would provide for better combinations to form matter, and no other shape of matter would provide for better fluidity within the infinite than the spherical ) bring about all physical phenomena within the Infinite, such as matter, energy and intelligence; along with gravity, light and sound.
If "nothing" did exist, if even infinitely minute space of nothing truly existed, there would be no Infinite since there would be limits; which means that the only seemingly infinite, had beginnings and endings. Yet existence, or particles and objects forming everything within the Infinite cannot form/evolve out of nothing. Therefore nothing cannot exist at all and definitely cannot extend beyond the Infinite, for the Infinite to exist, and for everything else to exist within the Infinite. Yet, if "nothing" does not exists, what then explains space for fluidity within the Infinite? Could there be an Infinite Nothing within an Infinite Everything, how could that be possible when the existence of the one, nullifies the existence of the other? Surely there always has to be something for something else to form from, and there always has to be something for something else to be de - formed ( destroyed, disposed of ) into.
Could it be perhaps hat we have an Infinite "antimatter" evolving to an "Infinite" matter and vice versa, infinitely? We could suppose that infinite Universes of anti-matter, break apart to infinitely minute particles of antimatter (or even just minute particles of antimatter), and switch/evolve/form in turn to infinite minute particles of matter ( or just minute particles), which in turn form Infinite Universes of matter; and infinite Universes of matter break apart to Infinite minute particles of matter and switch to infinitely minute particles of antimatter which in turn form infinite Universes of antimatter, infinitely.
Distance does not exist for the Infinite because even if an object travels thousands of light years in space, from the perspective of the Infinite, at the same time it has not moved at all, it moved thousands of light years, and it is also moving infinitely. The infinite is ever reaching and ever extending from every perspective both outwards the macrocosm and inwards the microcosm. The Infinite is within every matter, energy and intelligence, and every matter, energy and intelligence is formed from within the Infinite and de-formed into the Infinite. There are no absolute sizes within the infinite, nothing is absolutely large or absolutely small. An absolute zero temperature for example denotes a situation when all movement ceases, yet movement never ceases, it could decelerate infinitely within the infinite microcosm, and accelerate infinitely within the infinite macrocosm ( infinite large in size clusters of universes ).
Time does not exist for the infinite. Time is simply a measurement of movement in reference to other movement or change; change happens due to the interaction of particles or objects and its rate and effect depend on the cause and influencing factors and the object undergoing it. Change is relative to circumstance and its effect ( positive or negative, quick or slow ) a matter of perception of the observer going through said change ( what we think of as time, passes quickly when we are busy, absorbed in thought, are entertained; yet seems to stall in traffic, when we are bored, working through a drudging task etc. ).
Since time does not exist, dimensions do not exist; infinite universes and clusters of infinite universes are formed and deformed infinitely with infinite possibilities. There is nothing flat in the infinite; everything within the Infinite is made of particles ( quite possibly spherical in shape for fluidity of movement and formation ) with smaller particles forming between the spaces the larger particles form. If an object becomes small enough, it would find itself in a three dimensional space. There is no two dimensional space, and since time does not exist, there is not a forth dimension, or any other dimensions
Even if we suppose that in the vastness of the Infinite where everything is possible, an exact replica of our own universe existed, we would have to assume that in that universe every chain reaction from its beginning to the given point of comparison to our own, was exactly the same for every factor, even if seemingly insignificant, that would otherwise bring forth a difference between the two universes. But each of the two universes would also have been affected by infinite chains of actions and reactions that lead to their formation which would also have to be the same, for the universes to be exactly the same and so on. Continuing that process of reasoning we would deduce that to have an exact replica universe we would have to have such a phenomenon of similarity to reach an INFINITE degree. That would mean replicated infinities! Therefore two exactly the same universes where a person could find the exact replica of himself are an impossibility. If that was possible, and said person was able to find the exact replica of his planet of the exact replica of his universe within the infinite, that would be the only way to travel in time; provided he or she could choose from a vast number of replicas of the same universe in order to reflect the starting point in time since the formation of said universe, in order to travel to the specific one, a certain time in the past or the future.
The ONLY way that dimensional time could exist, let alone time travel being possible, would be if we would consider infinite possible futures within infinite EXACTLY THE SAME UNIVERSES ( which universes would have infinite minute differences ); through which, unbeknownst to ourselves and the people of our environment, we are passing to ( from one in a given infinite fraction of a moment, to another one out of the infinite alternatives ). That would be the only way to have dimensional time, with dimensional past and present, and a dimensional future (one out of the infinite available PER INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE ) which one though
preexisting / predetermined future would be chosen out of the infinite choices? But as aforementioned, such exact replica universes are an impossibility.
Even if we suppose for the sake of the argument that time - travel was possible, in order to travel back in time by means of actual time - travel, a person would have to have the means to roll back all the chains of actions and reactions that lead to his / her present point in time, causing a result of future changed actions and reactions. The result of his / her cells regressing would have a chain of actions and reactions to particles forming the subatomic particles that comprise them, to perhaps infinite reaching effect; the same goes with the regression of the persons environment and world. To travel to the future, which could not possibly be predetermined / preexisting, if supposedly there is such thing as dimensional time, which of the infinite futures mentioned above would be chosen. If such a one predetermined /preexisting future existed for an existence, then there would be no point for that existence, or its purpose would be limited (animals in a farm). If the future of our world was predetermined, then humanity could not be held accountable for its actions. There would be no point for existence, since there would be no living, experiencing, and learning from it. The future of every existence within the infinite could not be predetermined, if that was the case the infinite would be limited, with other words there would be no infinite since every existence in it would be like machinery. Finally, if we believed that our future was predetermined/preexisting, then we could not hold accountable our criminals, and the tyrants of history.
The idea that the future already exists, that everything is predetermined and therefore no reason for anyone to work towards anything since the outcome has already taken place in the future or some version of a predetermined future IS PREPOSTEROUS. At least with astrology there is always the explanation that " forces / spirits " would make things take place as foretold to lure you in the occult. Some of this time travel multidimensional PSEUDOSCIENCE is not further from occultism.
The idea of time travel sprang from the notion that time would slow down when travelling at the speed of light, and even regress when travelling faster. This theory could never be validated because such speeds are impossible to reach. Furthermore a craft travelling at such speeds would have to follow a means of navigation other than light since the image of objects in the immediate front of the craft, would reach the craft at double the speed of light ( both light and craft traveling at the same speed ) and objects perpendicular to the sides and back of craft would be invisible ( craft is always ahead of the image generated ) . The pilots would not be able to react since what would be visible to them would be a mixed stream of color and light jetting on them from their front sides and through the immediate front, because both them and the light travel at the same speed ( for one it would seem to them that they would crash on objects earlier than they actually would - also, for the sake of the point we suppose they survived the trip, and we also exclude from consideration traveling at that high a speed, and we exclude friction that would set enormous temperature and turn the craft alight before it reached a fraction of light speed, also we neglect the relativity concept that the mass of the aircraft would reach infinite levels ). Since objects travelling at the speed of light are impossible to observe, since their original position would be visible after they had already been long gone, experiments with them are impossible to be conducted EVEN in our imagination. Without even a reasonable deduction based on logical steps we cannot accept the existence of time a fact, let alone as the so called fourth dimension, a road onto which one can travel back and forth. Additionally the detrimental effect to the objects travelling at the speed of light, would give false perception in regards to their shape, and deem such an IMAGINED experiment invalid. An experiment that cannot even be conducted in our imagination, has no grounds and its theoretical outcomes are invalid or non existing.
Einstein and those who sold books and made movies based on his "time travel" theories tapped in humanity's characteristic of remorse and regret. Who would not want to go back in time and change things after they had acquired precious knowledge. Surely it would be nice if we could live long enough and be young enough to live, learn and live better in our longer futures.
Though at times referring to infinite levels and values, Einstein does not fully consider concepts from the perspective of the Infinite and infinity, and of the infinite and infinity applying to EVERY concept. Einstein came up with an equation which while it may hold its ground to things we can actually perceive and observe ( or we think we do ) it does not actually apply to the reality of the INFINITE ! If the maximum heat we can theoretically get by running an ALMOST infinitely large object by the speed of the fastest thing we are able to observe ( light ), then that would be the maximum temperature ( Energy ) theoretically achievable, which leads to the paradox that the whole amount of energy within the Infinite, is a finite unit ! What is the paradox with this, is that it contradicts the law of thermodynamics dictating that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If something is finite IT HAS TO BE CREATED AND BE ABLE TO BE DESTROYED, otherwise IT CAN BE NOTHING BUT INFINITE !
If we consider an object approaching a wall, would it eventually reach or NEVER reach the wall? How about BOTH at the SAME time! When we consider things from the perspective of an object of finite size, sure it will eventually reach the wall... that "0" point or in Einstein's terms the fastest speed possibly achievable, the speed of light ( before time and space get SUPPOSEDLY all jumbled up, relativity etc. ), but wait... What if the object becomes small enough to pass between the particles that comprise the wall ? Now consider this, what if as it passes it continues to become ever so small, INFINITELY small, at what point does it exactly pass through or even reach the wall ? NEVER !
The aforementioned considerations lead to the six fundamental principles of the Infinite from which most concepts can be explained:
1) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE SIZE, ABSOLUTE LARGE OR ABSOLUTE SMALL !
2) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is formed from matter and it forms matter, and it takes intelligence to do so. The Infinite is the Infinite Intelligence, Energy and Matter.
3) Where there is action there is a reaction ( truly Isaac Newton was one of the known, most intelligent humans ever lived ).
4) If an object becomes small enough, it will ALWAYS find itself in a three dimensional space. There are no more dimensions. If an object becomes small enough it will find itself in a " THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACE ."
5) Time does not exist, time is simply a means to measure movement in reference to other movement - how many turns a planet made around a star, while that star was rotating once around its galaxy, since physical / dimensional time does not exist, a fourth dimension does not exist.
6) Math is a perception ( a dimension if you like ) because our mathematical calculations depend on what amount we assign to a UNIT (stage). Math is the assigned amount of a unit ( 1 ), it's absence ( 0 ) and the Infinite ( never absolute unit or absolute absence of it ).
If an object traveled with the speed of light its original position WOULD BE INVISIBLE ( meaning we would see the object in its original position after the object had been long gone already, because it would take the same speed for light to reach it, and therefore light would not reach it in time ), so Einstein's relativity examples don't hold ( the objects that seem to collide to the perception of one observer while they overpass each other according to the perception of another observer. Also if the speed of light cannot be achieved, especially when considering what would happen to the mass (spacecraft) accelerating hypothetically towards even a fraction of the speed of light, let's keep the pseudoscience about time travel for the science fiction books so they can sell.
As light is warped from gravitational forces and is reflected upon objects, WE WILL NEVER VISIT INHABITED PLANETS OR WILL BE VISITED BY ORGANIC SPECIES FROM OTHER PLANETS UNLESS WE ( OR THEY ) FIND OTHER MEANS OF NAVIGATING THROUGH SPACE OTHER THAN LIGHT, WHY ?
We ( they ) would need to be able to perceive what lies ahead in time to avoid collisions ( Somedar - for a lack of a better word meaning a machinery which would be using other means to function than rays - many, many times faster than light, but even then our brains will never be able to react to such speeds, perhaps artificial intelligence thinking 100 times faster than the speed of light, to bring the "pulp" that would remain from our bodies somewhere - and NO time would not be affected ( since time does not exist ) and we would not travel in it, neither the effect of our brains bouncing in our skulls would change, or our cells and the very molecules that comprise them. Do I need to get into the type of steering and break system we would need ... SO NO LIVING BREATHING SPECIES HAS EVER AND WILL EVER REACH EARTH UNLESS THEY WERE OR WILL BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE BY OTHER MEANS THAN FOLLOWING LIGHT (shortcuts of the universe) OR UNLESS THEY ARE OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY + INTELLIGENCE + MATTER COMBINATION (for one they shouldn't have to breath, drink, eat move their bowels etc. - no time to sleep from all that bouncing and the noise and heat from all that friction etc. etc.)
No "Imagination is..." NOT "better than knowledge". Imagination is the means to collect the "ore" ( conceive the idea ), yet REASON, LOGICAL DEDUCTION, are the means to distill the "GOLD", which is knowledge.
Does light truly, travel ?! Or is it rather a ripple particle reaction our brains understand as "light" ( like water waves having a ripple reaction and we feel or see their impact on objects - there is movement of water, but it is not the first molecules in line which reach us, but the last ones). Light does not travel in a specific direction, that is why we say light speed and not light velocity unless we use the speed to describe the velocity of a hypothetical object that hypothetically travels in the speed of light towards a specific direction ( such hypothesis is null - such aircraft would burn and dissolve at a fraction of light speed due to friction - and only photons are traveling as scientists say at light speed. As scientists also say, photons have no mass, they don't acquire infinite mass as they "travel" light speed! Imagine the world bombarded by photons of infinite mass, there would not be a world, but then there would not be light in the first place.
See when light ( or sound ) occurs ( electron jump in the case of light ), it can be observed simultaneously from every direction. So it does not travel, it is the electron jump that causes a ripple effect, from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as "light." It would be like if people would stand in line in every direction and the person in the middle taps the next ( well in this example he/she would have to tap the people around him/her one at a time, but with light is different, just for the sake of the analogy without much nitpicking), and the people at the end feel the tap of the last person next to them, the first person in the center that started the "tap effect" didn't touch them ! With colored surfaces, the involved particles absorbing the facets of the tap of the different colors in the spectrum, allowing a different kind of tap to continue, one that has only the same color effect with the one of the surface. How long it took from the particle jumps that occurred to create the photons (or rather the ripple / tap effect) to the effect that those particle jumps ( creation of photons ) had on our brains, times the distance between our eyes and the particle jumps, we interpret as speed. That hypothesis would explain why it takes light speed for a photon to have its effect on our brains and while though it can be observed it has no mass let alone acquiring infinite mass ( if it was that it actually traveled light speed ). This could also explain how it is that light having no mass is affected by gravitational forces, is pulled by a black hole ( not the photons themselves but the particles of space involved in the light ripple / tap effect ). If light does travel, it does so in all directions, but even on a single direction traveling for 13 Billion years ( oldest light observable ), that would take a lot of energy lost.
So in the case of the light effect ( not travel ), we would have the TIME it took for the effect, but no SPACE ( no travel ). Take light, as we think we know it, out of the equation, and the MAGICAL / ALLURING idea of relativity is falling apart ! Why do we give so much weight to ONE physical phenomenon ( out of the Infinite which we cannot observe ), and we attribute all the function of the universe ( let alone the Infinite ) based on that singular phenomenon ?
Currents of particles cause movement of objects in space, and whirlpools ( wormholes ). Magnetic fields ( gravity ) pull space forming particles, pulling as a consequence said space; and bend light, the only means of navigation in space.
"Nothing", "Everything", "Time", "Space", "Distance", "Dimensions, "Beginning", "End", "Energy", "Mass", "Intelligence", "Objects", "Particles" are simply concepts conceived to describe what we THINK we see and understand within the INFINITE.
Matter would not move without energy and energy could not be directed without intelligence. The Infinite Intelligence Energy and Matter. No other concept except the Infinite, could be attributed the characteristics humanity has attributed to the idea of "God."
This theory / philosophy is called Infinitism; the theory / philosophy of the Infinite.
Re: The Solution To The Mystery
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:20 am
Monster wrote:I finished reading your opening post. To put it politely, what little I understood I disagreed with.
Why did you repost your opening post with your blue disclaimer?
Monster, I have just now finished "purging" my writing. I have just updated the disclaimer. I am neither crazy nor a fool. I know I am not accurate on the scientific concepts. Others have spent years upon years studying science; hours over the same calculus problem! Science is great! I wish I had the opportunity to study it formally. I would do so all my life. But scientists don't know it all. They make mistakes too !
Philosophers were the Pioneers, the trailblazers ! They had no prior knowledge available, not to the level Newton, Leibniz and Einstein did. They had to grasp the concept out of the darkness, for the scientists later to built upon, and for the rest of us to learn from. All in the name of dispersing the darkness of ignorance ! The root of all evil and the chains and shackles allowing all manipulation.
There was always a battle between religions; a disagreement between science and religion; arguments between atheists, theists and agnostics. Differences between philosophies. What if there was a theory that united all philosophies ! A theory that if not erased all scars, at least softened their appearance ! Which concept is not included within the Infinite ! What concept could possibly be left out ! How could anybody go wrong with the theory that deals with the INFINITE !
Skeptics are UNBIASED, NEVER CERTAIN when dealing with the unknown ! A skeptic could be a theist, but he doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist either. Since he / she can never be sure unless he sees, hears or touches; or at least unless something make sense following logical steps of deduction and conclusion; he/she simply does not rely on faith but reason !
Also one thing is to be religious and belong to a group and follow the rules dictated by the religious group you belong to, which has led some people from good to bad to evil deeds, and others to beneficial, or detrimental or disastrous circumstances; and another to be religious and just believe in the Divine.
As I said it takes years of studying to be a scientist, but to be a philosopher it just takes years of contemplating. If I can't be scientist and a philosopher, then being just a philosopher suits me fine !
Re: Is it more beneficial to individual health, to be a) A theist b) An atheist c) An agnostic D)...
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:13 pm
I am not referring to organized religion, but personal belief in something to look forward to and be hopeful about; not only for yourself but for those who you care for. That it just doesn't end here and that there may be a way through your life's struggles.
Surely the future is somewhat pre-determined considering an individuals genes and those of their parents.
There is a school of though which suggests that our thoughts affect the generation of the corresponding hormones which in turn affect us not only on a cellular level, but our feelings and our further thoughts, in a continuous cycle of increasing or decreasing effect. Our thoughts affect us psychologically. Thoughts affect young children and if not define, at least influence the adults they become, since they have a great influence psychologically to them and perhaps biologically.
If thoughts and feelings, have such great influence to our health, if the difference between staying healthy or recovering from a disease, or not, depended upon being hopefull or depressed, and if especially you were not 100% certain that there is no such thing as a higher force, or whatever other characteristic humanity attributes to the idea of "God"...
Would it be more beneficial to your health and the health of those who you care for; would it be more beneficial both psychologically and biologically to be :
A) A theist
B) An atheist
C) An agnostic
D) It wouldn't make a difference one way or another.
Wouldn't it be better to oppose the ignorant, manipulating, life and resource wasting type of
organized religion, as opposed to indiviual, personal belief ?
Positive thoughts bring positive feelings to an individual; such positivity affects the individual's environment ( work place ), which in turn affects more positively the individual in question and society and humanity in extend.
Being optemistic as opposed to pecimistic can make both literary and figuratively speaking,
* ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD ! *
Re: The Solution To The Mystery
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:17 pm
Taz - you should pay attention to what I'm about to say, I think ...
I do not make money by building houses because I'm not a builder and I wouldn't claim that I knew enough about building techniques to even build a pigsty.
I don't claim to be a painter, although I did spend a year at art college, because I'm not good enough with slippery substances to do anything of note.
I don't claim to be a mathematician because, even though I've worked hard to gain a little facility, my knowledge is nowhere near that of other people on this forum.
I can, and often do, spot a BS from a range of several miles.
You appear to think it's OK to insult the members of this forum by arguing for a set of transparently false pseudoscientific statements that come loosely from the top of your head. This is in no way amusing. Had you the scientific knowledge to disguise your BS, you could, possibly, run quite an amusing interlude for a little while, but you don't have the intellectual skill to do even that.
Basically, your total ignorance of even the most basic of scientific principles makes you appear to be not only a simpleton but, worse, an insistent and repetitive simpleton. But you appear not to have the insight into your own condition to realise this.
A new and possibly revolutionary scientific insight does not come from the top of someone's head. It takes years upon years of hard work gaining the basic understanding which is vitally necessary to scientific integrity. You have obviously done none of this and, as a result, have none of the very basic grounds of a scientific education (or, I might add, even a basic education) to form a firm foundation for your juvenile ideas.
I feel you should give up now, as I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you.
Re: Is it more beneficial to individual health, to be a) A theist b) An atheist c) An agnostic
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:38 pm
TazAnastazio wrote:I repeat to make it clearer, that since in my opinion most skeptic are not actually ansolutely certain about the existence of a "higher force", what then would a skeptics position be, if he/she thought that belief in a "higher force" would have benefits to an individual's life and health, due to hope and optemism generated by such faith. A clearly academic, philosophic question.
Your example could almost be taken word for word out of William James's book The Will to Believe
. That was written in 1896, and a decade later, he developed it more formally into what is called pragmatism. Invoking the consequences of a belief in order to justify the belief leads to an endless regression: How do you KNOW what the consequences would be? They would also be doubtful, so one would have to see what benefits result from believing each of the various alternatives. Only then could the original question be addressed. However, in finding out what the benefits of believing each of the consequences could be, you'd run into further unknowns and would have to make up a list of possible benefits and explore the consequences of believing each of them, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
That's only the beginning of the difficulties. James argued that when a question can't be decided, and one is forced to act on one assumption or the other, it is justified to base the decision on what is comforting. But that approach conflates policy
. I may indeed be forced to make a policy decision on the basis of incomplete information. But I don't have to assert absolutely that my decision is correct, only that it seems to offer the best hope based on present knowledge. We know where that leads. In 2003, when we didn't "know" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the Bush Administration dinned into our heads what the consequences would be IF he did. They kept saying they "didn't want the smoking gun (conclusive evidence) to be a mushroom cloud." By keeping people alarmed, they managed to gin up a war that cost 4000 Americans and at least 100,000 Iraqis their lives. And Hussein DIDN'T have the weapons.
At present, we don't KNOW with certainty whether human action is responsible for catastrophic warming (although we certainly have a very high degree of probability when we make that assertion). But the American Right Wing wants to argue that as long as there is ANY doubt, they are justified in believing the comfortable conclusion and doing nothing. That kind of reasoning is pretty certain to lead to disaster in a few decades, at most.
This kind of argument has a long history in religion also. It is known as Pascal's Wager, and it has been so thoroughly discredited so many times that I'm not going to crucify it yet again, except to say that the pragmatic approach would be to see which religion has the most horrible inferno and the pleasantest paradise. But to say that a person can simply decide to believe something and then go out and believe it is crazy to begin with. Either the rational mind is convinced or it's not. If it's not, then one doesn't REALLY believe, though one can of course really AFFIRM a belief (and many find it comforting to do so if it enables them to avoid the rack or the stake). What happens in practice is that people gradually teach themselves to affirm a belief, usually because their friends and neighbors all believe it, and after affirming it for many years, they get a conditioned reflex in their brain that works about the way genuine belief would work. That is, it resists anything that contradicts the belief and accepts whatever reinforces it without any reflection. That's a good simulacrum of real belief. Many monks and nuns admit privately that they wondered for a long time if all that meditation and prayer and contemplation was just being generated by their own minds. Some of them took months or years to damp down those doubts and train themselves to feel reassured when the doubts arose.
Re: Is it more beneficial to individual health, to be a) A theist b) An atheist c) An agnostic
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:42 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote: At present, we don't KNOW with certainty whether human action is responsible for catastrophic warming (although we certainly have a very high degree of probability when we make that assertion). But the American Right Wing wants to argue that as long as there is ANY doubt, they are justified in believing the comfortable conclusion and doing nothing.
You realise I can turn this argument around and say something along the lines of "as long as there is any doubt for God's existence, we are justified in believing the comfortable, for some of us anyway, conclusion and believe nothing." ? I could then elaborate in a fancy manner around this for a couple of paragraphs like so many others have done above. But scrap that. I appreciate the time you took to write a decent response. Others resolve to scrap my whole concept, clinging to the few attempts to imagine certain alternatives to already established scientific concepts, making the point that since my writing contains certain doubtful/disproven/wrongful statements on science the whole concept is null.
I'll write later when I have time, why I choose to believe, taking out what I already wrote in the opening post and subsequent ones. I'll be clear and sincere about it, even though I'll have to elaborate propably quite a bit. For now I'll say I believe because I know certain chain of events led to my existence, and my existence must have a purpose because everything in life has a purpose. I am not going to lie to anybody about this. I prefer for God to be real as opposed to not be. But the reason I believe God is real is because I can't understand how else it could be! If I ask for further explanation, the answer I'll get is I don't know the math, so I cannot understand how the singularity came to be out of nothing. The Bible explained creation in simple terms. It didn't get into evolution, infinity or other concepts the people of the earlier times would not understand. I don't ask for the explanation of the equation that lead to relativity. I simply ask what led to the infinite singularity, what created the forces that caused it to break apart and form the universe. The answer I get is "we don't know but the certain thing is that God didn't do it." If I see an accident on the street and they tell me it happened by itself, I would not believe it. Would you? Why it is me then that I am called a fool for believing (see above).
I took leaps of imagination to show that scientists could have possibly gotten certain things wrong, not because either way would disprove the existence of the Infinite, but because I like to think of all posibilities. At times I question my beliefs as every rational human being, the answer to me is not just "have faith," but "have faith because..." . I can't get something out of nothing, and since all the trouble has been taken for existence to be brought about, there has to be a reason for that, a purpose.
If someone could prove to me that I came out of nothing, and my life is pointless, I will not believe in God any more. But it will not be successful towards that end, to play the word game with me. I can distinguish BS from reasonable arguments. I don't have to prove that God exists. I exist and something led to my existence, now those who deny that God exist, have to prove how absolute nothingness led to my existence and my life is just happenstance and for no reason whatsoever! Of course such an assertion will in turn generate questions about conciousness, thought, free will, specific purpose of all things in life, cellular metabolic function...I could go on and on! The truth is I would have to convince me not to do believe in God, but to not believe/disbelieve the obvious, why would I want to do that? And how could that be possible? Ask yourself this:
Is it easier for you to believe that when presented with an object, that that object was formed by an infinite chain of actions, or that at some point going back in time from the objects formation, you reached a blank ?! Apply then the concept to intelligence. Now think of one thing that serves absolutely no purpose. Why would your existence be any different ?!
Our most brilliant scientists could not reach with their imaginations beyond the singularity to infinity, and they may have gotten a few things wrong here and there. I attempted just that, to reach with my imagination as far as I could into infinity. For 20 years now I've been contemplating the concept, have conversations with people, philosophizing on various concepts; unfortunately didn't have the chance to learn University science, master it and do the research to expand my ideas. This blog was a chance to do that, see where my imagination had took me, where I was right if anywhere, I knew I was wrong in most concepts except for the Infinite. When I was a child I wanted to imagine what lied beyond the stars. As an adult I wanted to reach to the depths of infinity with my imagination and if not answer humanity's unanswerable so far questions, at least find a reasonably satisfactory explanation for all things. Yet since both the most brilliant scientists and I have failed reaching with our minds to Infinity, the Biblical explanation of creation taken figuratively to allow for scientific explanations such as the concept of evolution, suits me fine. At least I tried through reason and step by step deduction and enjoyed contemplating my way through things. I did take some giant leaps, tested the extraordinary claims, but how else could anybody contemplate the Infinite ?! I didn't just believe because they told me so, but because it made sense to me, till proven otherwise.