Eise

You are right. It was Edwin Hubble, who discovered in 1923 that those spiral nebulae were much farther away than one previously thought. The Hubble telescope is named after him.

Not true. I've read a few books of Ehrman, and where he shows that the most rational standpoint, based on the sources we have, that Jesus existed, he definitely does not believe that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances are historical. Just to set that straight.

You could also start here.

It does represent reality. Just not precisely. But there is no reason for house builders to account for the earth's real form. Every representation of reality leaves something out. But I already said that frames of reference do not exist at all in reality. A frame of reference is like a coordinate system you use to make calculations. There are no coordinate systems in nature. But if the calculations are correct (e.g. you can predict the outcome of experiments with it), then you are methodologically justified to use them. And there is a very simple definition of what inertial frames are: all objects that stand still in relation to each other and no force works on any of these objects are said to belong to the same frame of reference. But there is no 'natural inertial frame', let alone one that is absolutely at rest. And as told you by several others here, light always moves with the same speed in any inertial frame, so it is no substitute for any 'preferred state of rest'. Further you underestimate how fundamental special relativity is. Any theory in physics that claims to be universal, must be consistent with special relativity, i.e. its laws of nature must be Lorentz-invariant. To give an example: the first formulations of quantum mechanics were not Lorentz-invariant. Dirac however did the job of formulating QM in a Lorentz-invariant way. But two predictions rolled out of it: that electrons have spin, and that they have anti-particles. Both were confirmed empirically. So in summary: you can derive special relativity without referring to inertial frames (relative velocities between objects suffice); and special relativity belongs to the bones of all physics, and is also tested to the bones. So what is the 'cul de sac' you are talking about??

You are very precise in your expression: you use the word 'called'. I think the real question would be: did we observe nature and discovered 'natural frames', or did we create the concept, because we find that the laws of nature have their simplest form in such a frame? (I assume you mean with 'self referential frame' the frame of reference in which the object of interest is at rest.) I am inclined to say that when a concept only has a clear meaning in the context of a scientific theory, then it is an 'invented' concept. And with 'inertial frames' I would even go farther: they do not exist at all. They are (very) useful abstractions: they make talking about relativistic effects much simpler. But I assume one could explain relativity and do not use that concept at all. So what I am saying to Simplicio is: yes it is an invented concept, and it has turned out that this concept helps an awfully lot to understand relativity. To use the formulation I used elsewhere: Simplicio's argument is true, but it is irrelevant. He obviously doesn't see that in science it is essential to invent new concepts.

No concept is 'nature-given', so one could say every concept is invented. Science is the 'art of inventing the right concepts'. 'Right concepts' are concepts that subsume as much as possible phenomena under a theoretical umbrella, and enable us to predict results, given a set of initial conditions, simply said, that show that they work. And be assured: special relativity is shown to work. Not just in experimental tests, but it is daily used in our technology (CERN could not smash protons at each other if the calculations for the accelerator were wrong; GPS would not work if it would not account for relativity, etc etc). It explains some phenomena we would otherwise not be able to, e.g. the colour of gold, or the relationship between electrical and magnetic fields. So the invention of the concept of reference frame turns out to be very useful: it explains a lot!

Not in an absolute sense. But we have some control, but you must take care about what you exactly mean. In the first place: the future is per definition what will happen. Said otherwise, practically seen there is only one future. In the second place: the word 'control' might be mis-usage: I can control a car (not absolutely again, otherwise there would not be accidents...), the temperature of my pans on the stove, etc. So the category 'controllable entities' exists in things and/or processes. The future is none of both. On the other hand, what the future will be depends also on us. So my actions are causal factors of how the future will look like. But of course in the huge network of causes and effects, my intentions that lead to my actions, can be completely lost: others do not want what I want (and act accordingly), there are unexpected events that interfere etc etc. So I can say I can 'control the future' in as far the results of my actions are what I intended. But I must be aware that many things happen that were not really intended by me.

You should clearly distinguish between the question why people believe certain things, and if what they believe is methodologically justified. In questions of faith the strongest determinant is what the parents and/or culture of the believer believe. But that says nothing about the intrinsic justification of the believe system. Religions mostly are based on tradition only, and their methodological justifications are generally very poor. Science as a 'belief-system' on the other hand is based on experiment, observation and strict mathematics, not on tradition. So where psychologically and sociologically there are similarities between religions and science (they are both interpretations of reality), science is firmly based on empirical research and log, where religions are just based on tradition. Faith is not a valid source of knowledge about reality. Even if there are rational sounding arguments in theology, these are not valid because the premises are not methodologically justified. When you put unproven nonsense into a rational argument, you just get more nonsense.

Some arguments are missing here... Nicely stated. But can you inform us about the proof of this 'property argument'?

Well, thank you very much. Nice to know that 'even you' get something from my postings. (Now that 'even you' was mean. But I hope you see the truth through the irony. Or is it the irony in the truth?). Anyway, what you describe is the best a philosopher can hope for, even if it is as 'small scale' as an internet forum.

Yes, because he talked about physics in his 'what is magnetism'-video. Implicitly he claims to be an authority on physics, and also of the process of what understanding physics means (which means he is philosophising...). Given his achievements, I grant him this authority. But given your posts, I cannot grant you authority on philosophy. As you did, obviously: Maybe it was nonsense, maybe it wasn't, I cannot know. An academic study, pity enough, is not a quality guarantee. But that you share this experience with Feynman does not make you an expert philosopher. So why did you come with the example of Feynman anyway? Must I send you a copy of my certificate, so that you believe me? I cannot speak for other philosophy departments. History of philosophy was only a small part of my curriculum. Main topics where philosophy of science, philosophy of society, philosophical anthropology (mind body problem, free will and such topics), and logic. For the record: it was your own observation, which I repeated, and showed the problem when you philosophise on your own, without propper tutelage. Wow! You do not know the ins and out of the concept of entropy, but you make an argument based on that consciousness ignores, or even reverses entropy? And I think, that as a philosopher, you should know about science. Therefore (at least in my days), to avoid that, one, as a philosopher is just freewheeling in some air castle, I was supposed to take at least a one year equivalent of some scientific discipline (which was physics and astronomy for me, which of course included also a hell of a lot of mathematics). That is only one form of ideological thinking. For me, ideological thinking is a way of thinking that sticks to ideas that are not rationally or empirically tenable. If you would just argue for your viewpoints, this would not be necessary. But if you argue that you are a philosopher, and that other people should first get to your level of understanding, then you can count on it that you get such reactions. The whole 'discussion about Gees' is your own fault because you say you are philosopher, and therefore you understand things better than others here do. What I see however is that you disqualify any opinion that does not fit to your ideas. You measure 'philosophical quality' by evaluating how well it fits your ideas. Outch! Remembers me of the problem of the 'first mammal'. (Which is a variation of the 'paradox of the heap', i.e. all kinds of categories that by nature only have vague borders) Yes, the quality of Wikipedia improved over time. I have no idea if a plant or bacterium feels. But if you say so: why would your idea that such lower life forms have consciousness not be given because it fits your emotional needs? No. At least not in the way that some hard materialists think consciousness is an illusion. What is an illusion however, is that consciousness somehow exists in itself. It is a function of complex material systems. And the only systems we know of at present that are conscious are animals with complex brains. So this one is clear an ideological statement: A flower 'wants to turn to the light'? How do you know? Did you talk with the flower? If you conclude that from its behaviour, then some variation of 'Bender's Toaster' comes into play again. If a robot turns to the light, how do you know that it also does not because it wants to? Because you defined consciousness as life? Any arguments to defend this definition? (BTW, if you knew a little about the history of philosophy, you would know that you have a predecessor for this idea: Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation. Maybe you would like it. See? This the way you dismiss other's view points and other philosophers. If they do not agree with you, then they cannot be philosophers. Of course I agree that humans are 'mental beings' (I would never say it like this, I would prefer something like 'humans have minds'.) But I would immediately add that this mind is a function of the brain. I don't know what you mean with 'spiritual' here. For me 'spiritual' refers to a mental attitude, not to some ontological separate category. On the high horse again... Arguments for a viewpoint need two attributes to be supportive for the viewpoint: they must be relevant, and (probably) true. In this case, religious arguments are relevant (they say things about the viewpoint at hand); the problem is they are (probably) not true, because they are not based on empirical research or clear rational analysis. They are just based on tradition. Yep, for the record, I did. Failed in what? I see several reasons that many scientists have a poor opinion about philosophy: It is not science, it is missing the touchstones of experiment and observation Some philosophers try to meddling into science Philosophers say things about science they have no idea of (entropy?) Philosophy that does not take science into account is worthless. (Just to add: science that does not take philosophy into account might be dangerous. But that is another topic.) So first you say that all life is conscious, and now you take the idea that the universe is alive serious? As CharonY already noticed, nobody in his right mind defends such a thing. So why mention it at all? I would say it is no subject at all, because nobody defends the above. Probably you are referring to the question if viruses can be called 'alive', but that is another question. - - - - - For the record: non of the negative points you got is mine. I would suggest you, that if you are here only to belittle us, to present us your great philosophy, then start a blog. If you are interested in discussing your ideas, then present them in smaller chunks (more fitting to a forum), but get from the high horse. Just to add: I sometimes also refer to the fact that I have studied philosophy: but I only do this if people present some weird ideas about philosophy (positive or negative) or claim some ideas as 'true philosophy'. I never do this in discussions on specific topics (or at least I hope I never did...). Arguments should be evaluated independent of the background of who presents them. Hmmm... I am not sure, but I smell a bit of a conspiracy mentality in your postings, with this remark as highlight. But there others (philosophy was only allowed when it supported religion; nowadays only when it supports science. Are you suggesting your 'philosophy' is suppressed in Academia?) iNow is just a very active member. Why would somebody 'check him'? I had some hot discussions with him, also blamed him for bad reading. But I really see no reason to 'check him'.

Well, consciousness was part of my academic study in philosophy, and it did not lead to such nonsense. If one wants to explain the role of consciousness in animals (human and non-human), I think it would be something like a 'coordination-centre'. But definitely not a power source. Why, the brain uses about 20% of all the energy we take in. And that for an organ that only makes about 2% of our weight. So you can safely study consciousness at the philosophy department. But be prepared that you often must distinguish between different meanings in equal words. See what I mean?

That we know that Feynman really understands what he is talking about, because he was in the discursive network of physicists that were working on similar theories, that these theories were confirmed by experiments etc etc. From you we only know that you say you are a philosopher. But philosophy is, as science, not just a collection of knowledge, of justified beliefs, but it is also a way of thinking that has to be learned and trained. Without teachers and colleagues to confront your way of thinking and your ideas you will have a very high barrier to really become a philosopher. Therefore I take your claim that you are a philosopher with a huge crystal of salt. The topics you are engaged in are definitely philosophical topics. But philosophy is not just the contents, as science is not just its content, but also a praxis of critical thinking. But what I see when I read your posts is a lot of ideological thinking. You pick the ideas from philosophical (and non-philosophical!) discourse on basis of what you like, not based on ideas that can withstand rational scrutiny. I am also irritated by your snootiness, as is iNow, that you know better than everyone here what consciousness is, because you have studied it, and therefore are a philosopher. I don't know what the philosophical definition is. It surely is not the same as 'life', as you seem to propose. Consciousness is not simply reacting at stimuli. A thermostat is also reacting at stimuli, but surely it is not conscious. So I can understand Bender when he brings in the example of a toaster, even if it might not be the best counter example. It is obvious you did not study everything. Otherwise you would have found dozens of arguments against your views. That does not mean that all these arguments are correct. But a good philosopher is aware of them, and in developing his/hers own ideas, discusses them, and argues why they are correct or not. Normally, studying philosophy at a university helps, because you will be confronted by counter arguments, or pointed at authors that have good arguments pro or contra the ideas you would like to present. And I thought psychology is the discipline that studies emotion. And who is 'we'? I have very much something against equating consciousness with life and the capability 'to continue'. I've studied this many years, so I cannot suppose you understand this immediately, because I am an academic trained philosopher, and you are not. How does feel such an argument to you? It is not a valid argument, of course. It is a way to avoid really discussing of one's ideas. Except that you equate consciousness with life again, your entropy remark is beside the point. It is true that life opposes entropy, but it does so by using energy and increasing the entropy in the rest of the universe. The decrease in entropy is only local. Life is per definition not a closed system, and the law of entropy is only valid for closed systems. Dr. Ian Stevenson? Really? That is misuse of the word 'instinct' (bold by me): Possibly, yes. But to experience feelings and emotions, it needs a complex information processing, a complexity so far we know, is only realised in nature by complex nervous systems. Bacteria do not have such systems. Well, I would say some religions have ideas about life after death. But religions are not science, so that's it. Having ideas. No empirically proven explanations of something that only exists in our ideas. As said, religion is not science, and therefore has nothing to say about these topics, except nice ideas. And that spirituality is not studied in science is not true. The earliest work I read (there might be older one) to put the scientific research on spirituality on a scientific track was Exploring Mysticism. A Methodological Essay (1975) by Frits Staal. 'Evidence'? Really? I think you should say support. Nothing more.

It cannot be a planet. They can hardly be seen when the sun is still above the horizon. For Venus, the brightest planet, the light is much too high above the horizon, Being an inner planet, it is always to the sun. I think it is a reflection of the sun in the camera's objective. Its place on the picture is pretty precise point symmetrical with the middle point of the picture. Also its unsharpness points in that direction.

You don't seem that evil to me... My Avatar and my name are derived from some grand-grand-...-grand-cousin, named Eise Eisinga. He built (a still working!) giant orrery through the ceiling of his living room in 1781, in Franeker, the Netherlands, to show that a conjunction of planets did not mean they would collide. So he was a debunker of superstition.

It was repeatedly said to you that it was repeatedly said to you that there are no non-local interactions. So stop asking. No consensus? I think all nearly all physicists agree that there only are non-local correlations. It follows directly from the formalism of QM (and QFT is simply the most modern form of QM), and Bell-like experiments have shown that QM is correct in this respect.

I made photos of an eclipse too, in March 2015 in Europe, and they also show this reflection in the lense: This is what the eclipse looked like when projected through binoculars: It does not need sunglasses... Reflections in the camera's already objective explain it.

As you have shown already, you do not understand clearly what science is, I can only say: read talkorigins on macroevolution and its proofs. Further you could read Phi for All's very apt remark.

What has this to do with philosophy? It looks like physics. But I am afraid it only looks like it. So I wonder where you earned the title 'Philosopher of time and space'. One thing is sure: not from some university... Sorry, Maarten, maar dit heeft niets met natuurkunde of filosofie te maken. It is pure, scientifically unsupported speculation.

Fiction. But there are non-local correlations.

Then why do you keep mixing content (e.g. false or true empirical claims in the bible) and the bible as 'natural phenomenon' (e.g. empirical claims about the bible)?

Of course. But they are not authoritative for scientific content. You are mixing the object of science (old books, studied by history e.g.) with the contents of science. In the second meaning, these old books are useless.

Lasse, It is a good trick for religions to present themselves as science. But they just aren't. And calling for doing science is not science itself. And even if Buddhism has some empirical core, and is pretty rational, it is more like a world view (humanism), with strong philosophical components. But philosophy is not science. And I would also say that Buddhism at most has something to say about the workings of the mind, from the first person perspective. And that is also hardly science. Maybe it is wisdom. But again: also wisdom is not science.

Maybe they once did. But they failed miserably. If you want to know something about nature, you should study nature, not your old books or your tradition. Yes. And its scientific content turned out to be useless. There maybe some wisdom, poetry, and nice stories in the bible, but it is definitely not a science book. So why hammering on this again and again?

One could say that religion is a part of nature. But then science can study it, but as a natural phenomenon. So religion is in fact studied, e.g. by sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, history, comparative religious studies. But none of them is concerned with the question if the religious propositions are true. In general, religions themselves do not even have methods to decide what propositions are true. They only have traditions to fall back on. They have nothing to do with science: except that they can be an object of science. But that is true for any natural phenomenon. Sorry, Lasse, but you are just proclaiming your world view that obviously feels good for you. It doesn't stand any rational criterion.