You can't prove that the past ever existed or that matter exists.
>yeah but matter SEEMS real so it makes no difference
Very common idea, but only people who haven't suffered much think this.
so if i slap you across the face like a bitch, are you gonna sit there and think about whether i'm real or not?
>>507834521>There's a water leak, are you going to call the landlord or not?>You're hungry, are you going to eat or not?>The sun is blinding you, are you going to keep looking at it or turn your eyes away?Extremely lame argument. Yet very common. What's your point?
>>507835173That your argument is useless theoretical, because if past don’t exist (or even present) your perception of it still forces you to act as if exists.
>>507834521>>507835173Or rather it is not an argument.
>>507835384So? That's not the topic.
>>507835409As I said rather than a lame argument it is not an argument at all.
>>507835384>your argumentWhich argument? I haven't made any arguments. I've presented propositions to be discussed. There's a difference.
This topic is too deep for the brainlets on this board.
>>507835384Someone in prison for life doesn't have to act as if the time before they were put in prison exists.
>In several dialogues, most notably the Republic, Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are "eu a-mousoi", an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses" (Theaetetus 156a). In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality. Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind.
>>507836869You don't care because you haven't suffered much. It's all the same to such people. People who have suffered ask the big questions, people who haven't don't.
>philosophical question>so? YOLO
>>507836990My mother died when I was quite young, will your theory bring her back to life?
>>507833602 (OP)>You can't prove that the past ever existed or that matter exists.I'm suffering material consequences from a material past
>>507833602 (OP)The past is history. The future is a mystery. Thays why its called the present. Its a gift
>>507833602 (OP)>you can't prove that the past ever existed or that matter existsI agree but is there a point that you want to make?
>>507837371I'm gonna punch you in the face as a gift.
>>507833602 (OP)I will defer to Hobbes he covers this in caps 1-3 of Leviathan. The trusting history bit is addressed later but I’m not sure where
>>507837554No you are not. Try being honest in your life. Its so much better to not live a life of lies.
>>507833602 (OP)So mystical. What are you like 20
>>507837059The discussion of who cares or not is rather meta. The actual topic is that you can't prove the past ever existed or that matter exists. All I'm saying is that "so? It seems real so it makes no difference" is not an argument:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
I only said that only people who haven't suffered think it doesn't matter as a way to provoke a discussion of the actual issue, not as a way to prompt a discussion of this in itself.
>>507837187This is a proposition, not an argument. Most people on here don't know the difference.
>>507837572And Popper if you want to get into it for modern criticism of rational empiricism.
As much as you might not like to admit, rational empiricism is the best predictive epistemological model and pragmatism is the rational and probably empirically best model for politics.
Let’s see what post ai philosophy brings
>>507837692Let's discuss the actual issue then? What do you think about it?
>>507837753>This is a propositionWhat am I proposing exactly? Do you mean to tell me your actions don't have consequences?
>>507837371No, its called the present because it's the opposite of absent. Make an argument.
>>507837848Based Greek. Should I go back to reading Ethics or monitor this thread?
I can!
Memory, subjective proof and it's sufficient.
That being said, past, present and future are the same in a way, potential, preexisting programming.
The only thing I can't prove is my sanity, to myself! lol
There are 500 year old sharks and 200 year old turtles.
>>507837916I'm no better than Aristotle so better go back to that.
>>507837848I think that it does in fact matter. For example to someone in prison for life it matters whether the world beyond what he experiences objectively exists or not.
>>507837880>What am I proposing exactly?That you're suffering material consequences from a material past.
An argument consists of at least two propositions where one supports the other. The proposition which supports is called premise, the proposition which is supported is called conclusion.
https://youtu.be/vgqpuQ4QnlE
>>507838407>>507838206If we agree to believe in the present, then what we perceive as the past, memory or whatever could be created at that precise moment, correct?
I will say, becoming an older man now at the midpoint of life (godwilling lest I make to a decrepit 82) that the profundity of collective memory's knife edge existence is all the more black-pilling (for lack of a better word). Watching history bend before my eyes tells me I can barely trust recent documents. We build a historical model on fragments. My craft is reviewing old cases and trying to guide people into how it should be handled today while dealing with new rules that appear semi randomly so perhaps my view is tainted. But it remains true that there is about 130 years of living memory, otherwise it’s reliance on lore and interpretation.
At least physics and math appear to be consistent. Medicine has a long way to go still and shrinks are just priests with less discipline to rely on.
I do hope I get to at least see what crazy shit is coming which ai coming.
>>507838198Indeed. Maybe later, back to work.
Beyond the New Age "quantum" bullshit, there is actually some usefulness in learning about the latest physics in a coherent manner. AI tools can do this better than whatever pop-sci book where the nerd British PhD author is trying to show off and sound smart. So any way, learning about what happens at the Planck scale and inside Black Holes and all that stuff, together with some theories of a computation/information-based universe. Stephen Wolfram has done a *decent* effort there, not saying that I'm buying everything that he's selling. Try not to be super reactive, I'm just mentioning some things that you can take into account. Why do they matter for your question? Well, if we find the computational approach to the universe persuasive, then there's something to be said about what the most efficient way to do things (as the ones mentioned in your OP) would be.
>>507833602 (OP)Why would I need to prove anything to you? You are nobody.
rupees
md5: fb905bea8ba42ca4709b2832309e81e6
🔍
OP is an immigrant wasting your time for (You) rupees
>ITT ‘men’ who will never reproduce
Praise be to God
