Atoms and Void
@atomsvoid.bsky.social
Long ago, Leucippus and Democritus said that everything is atoms and void. Turns out that, more or less, this is correct.
I would give knowledge the primary spot here, it is the most important thing in making the seemingly impossible happen. But I can agree positive thinking, or faith, helps.
However, the physical impossible, will stay impossible. No matter how much knowledge, or how much faith.
However, the physical impossible, will stay impossible. No matter how much knowledge, or how much faith.
December 12, 2024 at 11:21 AM
I would give knowledge the primary spot here, it is the most important thing in making the seemingly impossible happen. But I can agree positive thinking, or faith, helps.
However, the physical impossible, will stay impossible. No matter how much knowledge, or how much faith.
However, the physical impossible, will stay impossible. No matter how much knowledge, or how much faith.
The way we structure our thoughts, has no effect on reality. Only our actions affect reality.
December 11, 2024 at 7:08 AM
The way we structure our thoughts, has no effect on reality. Only our actions affect reality.
Why don't I need to do that.
If morality has utility. Then humans can reason about it. Thinkg about what outcomes might be. Do experiments with it, or look at history, or neighbouring cultures for those experiments. Error correct.
To say morality came from a different source is superfluous.
If morality has utility. Then humans can reason about it. Thinkg about what outcomes might be. Do experiments with it, or look at history, or neighbouring cultures for those experiments. Error correct.
To say morality came from a different source is superfluous.
December 4, 2024 at 4:28 PM
Why don't I need to do that.
If morality has utility. Then humans can reason about it. Thinkg about what outcomes might be. Do experiments with it, or look at history, or neighbouring cultures for those experiments. Error correct.
To say morality came from a different source is superfluous.
If morality has utility. Then humans can reason about it. Thinkg about what outcomes might be. Do experiments with it, or look at history, or neighbouring cultures for those experiments. Error correct.
To say morality came from a different source is superfluous.
Morality has utility.
Imagine a world where lying, cheating, stealing, even murdering, was common, and not considered a bad thing. Just going to a supermarket would be dangerous. Somebody might kill you for your money. The supermarket will cheat you. Etc.
Imagine a world where lying, cheating, stealing, even murdering, was common, and not considered a bad thing. Just going to a supermarket would be dangerous. Somebody might kill you for your money. The supermarket will cheat you. Etc.
December 4, 2024 at 12:38 PM
Morality has utility.
Imagine a world where lying, cheating, stealing, even murdering, was common, and not considered a bad thing. Just going to a supermarket would be dangerous. Somebody might kill you for your money. The supermarket will cheat you. Etc.
Imagine a world where lying, cheating, stealing, even murdering, was common, and not considered a bad thing. Just going to a supermarket would be dangerous. Somebody might kill you for your money. The supermarket will cheat you. Etc.
Maybe you provide empirical data that conflicts with what I said?
Normally philosophical (or theological) ideas don't have empirical data, otherwise they would be scientific ideas.
Normally philosophical (or theological) ideas don't have empirical data, otherwise they would be scientific ideas.
December 4, 2024 at 8:04 AM
Maybe you provide empirical data that conflicts with what I said?
Normally philosophical (or theological) ideas don't have empirical data, otherwise they would be scientific ideas.
Normally philosophical (or theological) ideas don't have empirical data, otherwise they would be scientific ideas.
Same place wings originated.
These are not absolutes, codified before the universe existed, or something like that.
But relative to the situation. What works in physics to fly. What works between private minds to cooperate.
These are not absolutes, codified before the universe existed, or something like that.
But relative to the situation. What works in physics to fly. What works between private minds to cooperate.
December 3, 2024 at 9:05 PM
Same place wings originated.
These are not absolutes, codified before the universe existed, or something like that.
But relative to the situation. What works in physics to fly. What works between private minds to cooperate.
These are not absolutes, codified before the universe existed, or something like that.
But relative to the situation. What works in physics to fly. What works between private minds to cooperate.
It is one thing to not agree and believe your own things. But quite a different thing to not understand what others believe and what reasons they have for that.
Like how you don't seem to get why these are my last replies.
Anyhow. Good luck with that. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
Like how you don't seem to get why these are my last replies.
Anyhow. Good luck with that. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
November 25, 2024 at 2:39 PM
It is one thing to not agree and believe your own things. But quite a different thing to not understand what others believe and what reasons they have for that.
Like how you don't seem to get why these are my last replies.
Anyhow. Good luck with that. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
Like how you don't seem to get why these are my last replies.
Anyhow. Good luck with that. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
Any evidence god wrote the bible and not people? Or that god did not write the vedas or quran?
Any evidence atoms ever moved outside of what physics dictates?
I hope you have a good answer, otherwise this will be my last reply.
Any evidence atoms ever moved outside of what physics dictates?
I hope you have a good answer, otherwise this will be my last reply.
November 25, 2024 at 2:25 PM
Any evidence god wrote the bible and not people? Or that god did not write the vedas or quran?
Any evidence atoms ever moved outside of what physics dictates?
I hope you have a good answer, otherwise this will be my last reply.
Any evidence atoms ever moved outside of what physics dictates?
I hope you have a good answer, otherwise this will be my last reply.
And then you dismiss god, right, because your criteria is:
"physical, observable evidence".
And you must be dismissing any mathematical proofs. Don't believe others are conscious. Don't think nuclear fusion is a thing. Etc.
Your criteria is too strict.
"physical, observable evidence".
And you must be dismissing any mathematical proofs. Don't believe others are conscious. Don't think nuclear fusion is a thing. Etc.
Your criteria is too strict.
November 25, 2024 at 2:19 PM
And then you dismiss god, right, because your criteria is:
"physical, observable evidence".
And you must be dismissing any mathematical proofs. Don't believe others are conscious. Don't think nuclear fusion is a thing. Etc.
Your criteria is too strict.
"physical, observable evidence".
And you must be dismissing any mathematical proofs. Don't believe others are conscious. Don't think nuclear fusion is a thing. Etc.
Your criteria is too strict.
No. But if that your criteria to dismiss abiogenesis, then you should reject many things that have even shakier footing. Including, say, what stars are, the roman empire, or god creating the universe or earth or life, etc.
November 25, 2024 at 12:33 PM
No. But if that your criteria to dismiss abiogenesis, then you should reject many things that have even shakier footing. Including, say, what stars are, the roman empire, or god creating the universe or earth or life, etc.
But from whom, that is the question ... luckily I don't live there ...
November 25, 2024 at 11:14 AM
But from whom, that is the question ... luckily I don't live there ...
This lack of evidence against that claim of our neighbour isn't "hard to accept", imho.
As a matter of fact, there is an extra problem for the believer here: That acting upon something as if it is knowledge, where rationally we must stay agnost, is an offence to any higher being. 2/2
As a matter of fact, there is an extra problem for the believer here: That acting upon something as if it is knowledge, where rationally we must stay agnost, is an offence to any higher being. 2/2
November 25, 2024 at 8:29 AM
This lack of evidence against that claim of our neighbour isn't "hard to accept", imho.
As a matter of fact, there is an extra problem for the believer here: That acting upon something as if it is knowledge, where rationally we must stay agnost, is an offence to any higher being. 2/2
As a matter of fact, there is an extra problem for the believer here: That acting upon something as if it is knowledge, where rationally we must stay agnost, is an offence to any higher being. 2/2
Imagine a neighbour, who buys a lottery ticket and then continues to claim it is the winning lottery ticket.
Theoretically we have to stay agnost to his ticket actually winning.
But pragmatically speaking, we can say he doesn't know the future, and is therefore has no knowledge. 1/2
Theoretically we have to stay agnost to his ticket actually winning.
But pragmatically speaking, we can say he doesn't know the future, and is therefore has no knowledge. 1/2
November 25, 2024 at 8:22 AM
Imagine a neighbour, who buys a lottery ticket and then continues to claim it is the winning lottery ticket.
Theoretically we have to stay agnost to his ticket actually winning.
But pragmatically speaking, we can say he doesn't know the future, and is therefore has no knowledge. 1/2
Theoretically we have to stay agnost to his ticket actually winning.
But pragmatically speaking, we can say he doesn't know the future, and is therefore has no knowledge. 1/2
One is a process in physics, which we can describe, then find evidence for or against, which we can simulate, experiment with. That is how we come to know.
For the other, we cannot do any of that, so unless that changes, we will forever be stuck not knowing.
For the other, we cannot do any of that, so unless that changes, we will forever be stuck not knowing.
November 24, 2024 at 11:58 PM
One is a process in physics, which we can describe, then find evidence for or against, which we can simulate, experiment with. That is how we come to know.
For the other, we cannot do any of that, so unless that changes, we will forever be stuck not knowing.
For the other, we cannot do any of that, so unless that changes, we will forever be stuck not knowing.
Agree. There is an asymmetry in theism vs atheism.
November 24, 2024 at 11:53 PM
Agree. There is an asymmetry in theism vs atheism.
I think you are playing fast and loose with the word "know".
And I think the human brain, being evolved and all, is not as reliable as it likes to presents itself.
The good news is: you can error correct yourself out of that situation. The bad news is: you went off the deep end.
And I think the human brain, being evolved and all, is not as reliable as it likes to presents itself.
The good news is: you can error correct yourself out of that situation. The bad news is: you went off the deep end.
November 24, 2024 at 11:50 PM
I think you are playing fast and loose with the word "know".
And I think the human brain, being evolved and all, is not as reliable as it likes to presents itself.
The good news is: you can error correct yourself out of that situation. The bad news is: you went off the deep end.
And I think the human brain, being evolved and all, is not as reliable as it likes to presents itself.
The good news is: you can error correct yourself out of that situation. The bad news is: you went off the deep end.
Assuming the status quo, humans cannot gather knowledge about what is beyond our reality, what caused it, what still controls it, if at all.
And that gives a problem similar to the brain in a vat, as god tries to give you that knowledge, you cannot verify it, so maybe you are talking to a deceiver?
And that gives a problem similar to the brain in a vat, as god tries to give you that knowledge, you cannot verify it, so maybe you are talking to a deceiver?
November 24, 2024 at 11:48 PM
Assuming the status quo, humans cannot gather knowledge about what is beyond our reality, what caused it, what still controls it, if at all.
And that gives a problem similar to the brain in a vat, as god tries to give you that knowledge, you cannot verify it, so maybe you are talking to a deceiver?
And that gives a problem similar to the brain in a vat, as god tries to give you that knowledge, you cannot verify it, so maybe you are talking to a deceiver?
Nothing gave purpose. Purpose is not something to give. It is not a thing.
Intelligences adopt goals, after which things are done for a purpose, ie, in service of a goal.
Intelligences adopt goals, after which things are done for a purpose, ie, in service of a goal.
November 24, 2024 at 11:26 PM
Nothing gave purpose. Purpose is not something to give. It is not a thing.
Intelligences adopt goals, after which things are done for a purpose, ie, in service of a goal.
Intelligences adopt goals, after which things are done for a purpose, ie, in service of a goal.
So never did a physical process produce something that wasn't there before? What an argument! Color me destroyed!
And notice, again, or still, that conflation between the two kinds of purpose.
The only thing your question destroyed is brain cells.
And notice, again, or still, that conflation between the two kinds of purpose.
The only thing your question destroyed is brain cells.
November 24, 2024 at 11:10 PM
So never did a physical process produce something that wasn't there before? What an argument! Color me destroyed!
And notice, again, or still, that conflation between the two kinds of purpose.
The only thing your question destroyed is brain cells.
And notice, again, or still, that conflation between the two kinds of purpose.
The only thing your question destroyed is brain cells.
That is a silly conflation on your part and basically already answered. But sure.
"We" as in, humanity, the universe, etc. don't exist for a purpose.
"My life" has plenty of purpose. From the mundane, like I eat to stave of hunger. To the important, like I learn, to stave off ignorance.
"We" as in, humanity, the universe, etc. don't exist for a purpose.
"My life" has plenty of purpose. From the mundane, like I eat to stave of hunger. To the important, like I learn, to stave off ignorance.
November 24, 2024 at 10:53 PM
That is a silly conflation on your part and basically already answered. But sure.
"We" as in, humanity, the universe, etc. don't exist for a purpose.
"My life" has plenty of purpose. From the mundane, like I eat to stave of hunger. To the important, like I learn, to stave off ignorance.
"We" as in, humanity, the universe, etc. don't exist for a purpose.
"My life" has plenty of purpose. From the mundane, like I eat to stave of hunger. To the important, like I learn, to stave off ignorance.
The question implies a purpose, but there is none.
Our reality is "atoms and void", stuff just happens, until some form of intelligence existed, nothing happened for any purpose.
Our reality is "atoms and void", stuff just happens, until some form of intelligence existed, nothing happened for any purpose.
November 24, 2024 at 10:39 PM
The question implies a purpose, but there is none.
Our reality is "atoms and void", stuff just happens, until some form of intelligence existed, nothing happened for any purpose.
Our reality is "atoms and void", stuff just happens, until some form of intelligence existed, nothing happened for any purpose.