yes true, not the job for "lesswrong", but job for ours to reflect "lesswrong" by being patient , less hasty
okay now perhaps we will discuss,
i want to explain the foundation of cause and effect, namely logical consequences, which are not just the commonly known logical consequences that fall into the category of cause and effect.
instead, these are logical consequences that are truly separate from cause and effect because they form the basis.
That's the essential information. if it's not fully understood, it's okay, but at least you grasp that there are 'logical consequences' different from the commonly known ones.
we can breakdown our discussion in days or weeks, it is okay to clarify the ambiguous for days, since lesswrong not a get smart quick schemes.
it's a gradual process. otherwise, this is really "hugewrong" not just lesswrong
"less of this" is true less reply as it should be
you can try to point on specific paragraph or line to discuss it?
if you know the "doesn't make sense" part of it, then you must be able to show us where those parts.
otherwise there must be wrong communication between us, i don't know where side
any way objectively, you're not speaking for yourself, thanks for your comment
Downvoted without explanation, is not a rebuttal at all, not intellectual disagreement but subjective haste 👎
RELATIVE ANSWER
The yes or no answer is multi-dimensional. Not only from a certain point of view, but broadly there are certain aspects of achievement and certain failures, so that from a time point of view, currently there are two answers in different contexts.
YES, because many people use calculus mathematics to calculate changes
NO, because mathematics cannot yet reconcile general relativity & quantum mechanics
When you ask for a definitive answer, I also have to answer objectively. And that's a close to objective answer. Why?
In a level of causality....
There must be as part of a process, but basically it can be solved in the sense that mathematic essential in physics for formulating theories, making predictions, and quantifying relationships between variables
But not for philosophy in the sense that philosophy mostly abstract, not objective
Somehow philosophy must have its own formula, a rational & objective statement(s), so there won't be a gap in between philosophy to both (mathematic & physics)
Please don't just downvote based on karma or other values, as this is still something new. Downvoting might not be beneficial for ongoing discussions where we could potentially inspire each other without stopping in unnecessary mid-discussion.
Feel free to discuss for days; it's better than rushing to judgment.
Thank you for your courage in providing reasons.
I will give an explanation, hoping it can be understood.
Sometimes we pursue idealism without trying to adjust our approach. We focus solely on one method based on principles, stubbornly afraid to deviate from the dream we've planned.
Yet, we can change our approach to achieving our dreams in a more realistic way. However, sometimes what is considered realistic turns out to be futile because, despite being within our capabilities, it is misplaced in terms of timing.
The key here is that sometimes we don't simply...
Please rather just downvoting, try to explain briefly your reasoning otherwise it's just sentiment with no objectivity at all. Besides, we have more time to discuss. Don't be frightened if you have sharp & coherent answer.
As stated from guidelines:
When we use logical consequences, it means we have gone one step beyond reasoning with cause and effect, because logical consequences are the gateway to universal truth. and that is what actually happens in the phenomena of quantum physics, revealing truths beyond the cause-and-effect relationships of induction or deduction. By delving into the logical consequences behind cause and effect, it enables us to perceive universal truths.
This is where quantum physics comes into play, in the realm of simplicity, which, from a logical standpoint, falls under the c...
Metaphilosophy is about reasoning through logical consequences. It's the basic, foundation of causality
You can read here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Xnunj6stTMb4SC5Zg/metaphilosophy-a-philosophizing-through-logical-consequences
As you said: "Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it's basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America."
I am not saying something irrelevant, It's not like that. What I mean:
When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows tha
As you said: " It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules."
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
As you said: "celestial bodi
On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it'll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.
Imagine a missile exploring a space and bound by a strong rope in its nose. When t
The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.
Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.
Moreover, for the motion that closer to parabolic or circular and it was happened over and over again, then this further indicates the existence of resistance to the linear momentum that is not random and directed, and this confirms there is something behind it, and it's the ex
We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.
Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, it will be formed as an approval.
There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.
Another proof for intelligence life, that should be considered leads to the existence of The Most Powerful Consciousness:
Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.
And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parab
For someone that still don't understand my argument:
Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.
Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter.
When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understoo
Yes, you are correct, but on my side, the necessity that inherent to my logical thinking asserts the existence of God. Anyway, Every person has differences, I can't argue it.
We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.
Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, will be formed as an approval.
There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.
Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.
And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better.
If th...
Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.
Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again, sorry for this.
When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understood
Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again. sorry for this.
Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter
Universe does not cover everything, universe just as a place for everything. All qualities are not derived from the universe, because if this is true, then at least there are signs that the universe has a quality of one of thing that derived from the universe itself, which is able to communicate. It's just a place. We are not within universe, but universe within us.
Thank you Richard for reminding me. I am not suggesting for someone pressing Ignore button. I deleted my statement "You may agree or ....."
I really like that lesswrong have the spirit of seeking truth. That's why I change the comment to conform with the spirit of seeking truth.
I read all as you suggested, that's great. Thanks.
Thank you
As you said: "Which philosophical problems do you think are solved, and what is the answer?"
I have proof of the existence of God, but I need a minimum of karma = 2 in order to publish in the discussion. Is there someone help me to have the opportunity to publish? Thank you.
I already had karma = 2, Thank you I already submitted on http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/51d/there_is_god/
Apparently I need a minimum of karma = 2 in order to publish in the discussion. Is there someone help me to have the opportunity to publish? Thank you.
Thanks anyway. Actually I already submit, but still under "draft" condition. I'll look around ...
I've edited to cancel my statement "Some people may feel intimidated by such an argument, and this can continue to turn off the post so that it collapsed (hidden).) I just want to make clear to someone of this type to appreciate and not easily turn off the post. I do not understand the lesswrong, whether some people who turn off an article by doing a few times downvoted, will result in an article not visible to all readers. But if downvoted for many times does not make an article to be collapsed, only to certain people, then it's certainly a very good thing."
I understand now. On LessWrong it's about share honestly with the spirit of seeking truth. Thanks.
As I realize, this community seems trapped in downvoting, making it easy to judge without prioritizing intellectual arguments, except for limited responses or subjective criticisms.
It's the evident from the overly sensitive downvoting due to capslock ...
It's the evident from the non-objective response, 'Speaking for myself? you're talking to yourself'? (You're not talking to yourself)
It's the evident from merely protesting without pinpointing the objection, indicating subjective dissatisfaction that cannot be understood objectively at all?
Is it evident fro... (read more)