Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by H on December 06, 2019, 09:50:56 pm »
Buzz-skill.

...
Am I helping?
Well, you probably can't hurt more than we already have, so, yes?
22
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by Wilshire on December 06, 2019, 08:25:14 pm »
Buzz-skill.

...
Am I helping?
23
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by H on December 06, 2019, 02:13:41 pm »
Well, we did kill the thread for everyone else, it seems. The glamorous life of having no friends.
If I have a skill, it's probably at being a buzz-kill.
24
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by SmilerLoki on December 06, 2019, 08:55:28 am »
Well, we did kill the thread for everyone else, it seems. The glamorous life of having no friends.
25
Philosophy & Science / Re: Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science
« Last post by H on December 05, 2019, 10:55:20 pm »
Well, I am not an expert by any stretch, so I am pretty sure I am not at all qualified to condense or summarize Carroll's position at all.

If you really want to dive down the rabbit hole, you can likely start here where I think Max Tegmark at least seems to try to present many possible options on multiverses.  How probable or plausible are they all?  No idea.  The answer, I think, is likely always that we need to know more about QM, probably.
26
Philosophy & Science / Re: Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on December 05, 2019, 10:41:13 pm »
All these theories and no experiments, science is about falsifiable results if you can't even experiment on your theories it's philosophy not science. All imo of course.

Just for clarity, people agree on this, yeah? One isn't "doing science" if all they are doing is proposing un-falsifiable claims, right? There is some division between theoretical vs. experimental of course, but is there a point where theory is so far from being verifiable that it ceases to be scientific?

Honestly wrt to MWI this isn't clear. Carroll has argued MWI is falsifiable if one falsifies QM, but this to me seems like such obvious sleight of hand I wonder if he's got a better argument that's been misconstrued...

That said, there is an argument that logically MWI is the best choice, but I see this as nothing more than the kind of aesthetic preference that determines which option one selects wrt to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
27
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by H on December 05, 2019, 06:19:51 pm »
Yeah, pretty much my thinking here!

Well, it's nice to know that jumble of jargon makes sense to anyone else, besides me, out there, haha.
28
Philosophy & Science / Re: Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science
« Last post by Wilshire on December 05, 2019, 04:06:53 pm »
All these theories and no experiments, science is about falsifiable results if you can't even experiment on your theories it's philosophy not science. All imo of course.

Just for clarity, people agree on this, yeah? One isn't "doing science" if all they are doing is proposing un-falsifiable claims, right? There is some division between theoretical vs. experimental of course, but is there a point where theory is so far from being verifiable that it ceases to be scientific?
29
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by SmilerLoki on December 05, 2019, 03:51:29 pm »
Yeah, pretty much my thinking here!
30
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« Last post by H on December 05, 2019, 02:08:00 pm »
Indeed. The Gods are just another way of perceiving consciousness, different from what more conventional beings like Men observe. Men move through time, which creates a certain frame of reference for conscious experience. The Gods do not, and so their frame of reference is different, atemporal. The consciousness itself, though, needs not be fractured for this, only perceived as such by Men.

Well, I think Subjective self-consciousness is "fractured" in the subjective experiential sense.  Because the monism "appears" as pieces of the whole.  Of course, there are no pieces, since the whole is still the whole, differentiation is a sort of experiential "illusion" of perspective.  But I pretty much agree with what you said.

Also, this is likely why the Nonmen consider the 100 as "Principles."  Because they are exactly that, conceptual "beings" (in more psychoanalytic terms, akin to Jung use, a "complex") of consciousness (self-consciousness).  They are anthropomorphic only because that is how consciousness (self-consciousness) experiences and describes them, a sort of narrative contrivance, externalized as a sort of psychological projection.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10