universaltheory

Q&A What if pre-recording is manifested through our ability to reason? Does reality allows it or not?

Because reality answers

Unfortunately I can't comment on why you went out of context far from my presented argument while quoting my posts That makes sense to me: thank you

Ignore reality! Who said that? Reality is just existing facts according to how I can justify it. And value addition is part of reality. And it is reality that decides what works with value addition through practicals: and as said practicals boil down to what works in reality or not: and beliefs (theistic or atheistic) have worked practically well in social and psychological motivation and inspirations Whether being skeptical about reality is from a celebrated standard or non celebrated standard is just a question of how that standard justifies that.reality in. a way that makes sense in a non self contradicted way I keep rationality out of my belief and I believe in what if rationalism is what makes sense to me? Every one has a right to believe in what he or she finds makes sense! If some one does not find it in rationalism its okay to the concerned but not me who finds a lot of sense in rationalism

I don't need to believe in what works! The question is either it works or not But I need to believe in what makes sense to me ! And the question here is that if it " will" work or not It makes some sense to me; thank you

"The whole point is that if something " works " or proved to be working we don't need to use belief------ well said But if all our practices depended only on that which is working without investing in what has not worked but with decidable reasons to believe that it can work or not work; no one.would have been skeptical any more That doesn't surprise me: I already knew that every one believes in what "makes sense" to him or her! But thank you for the self defeating comment

You learn towards science bra bra bra--- that is a practice of satisfying the purpose of what you believe in! And my dia try to differentiate between believing in what works practically and what does work! This is one of the greatest question if not concern in all belief systems Let me hop that you also don't believe that your posts make any sense!

-religiosity or desire to worship according to belief -worship or religious practices of one's belief YesYes; humanity might have evolved a certain religiosity which they practice differently to satisfy the purpose of their different beliefs! Your belief(in God or a god or non existence of one or fantacy or what interests you etc determines what you practice to satisfy the purpose of your belief Forexample; I believe in skepticism and and inquisitive and curious of the existence of God or not and the universe etc; this shapes my practices

You believe in intellectualism for the reasons we don't know and may be you can't justify! But at least you invest a lot in it here and you worship ideas that work for you Bravo

The only truth or falsity; good or bad; right or wrong etc are just those which can be justified or proved or verified objectively or subjectively! Sometimes the subjective conclusion of the above is just convictional(see democracy) and objective conclusion of the above is consistent and complete or incomplete

The way we perceive peace differs that's why we can't have a general consensus on what qualifies to be a peacefully world!and disagreements fertetilise skepticism and fuel our civilisation.may be we can talk of; if we could realise the mechanism and processes through which peace for all can be achieved regardless of our disagreements

God is speculated to be the last statement to finalize the puzzle of our reality from the subjective point of view, and science will never give u a final answer to our reality cause by doing so; skepticism-curiosity and inquisitive will be over and science will sieze to be only to turn into theology! Perhaps if one day science can reach the level of dealing with that ping-pong dragon; it will reduce it to a catalyst or stimulus sort of entity; which is also religiously unwelcome! But never the less; science will one day tell us why do we believe and why do we have to believe in the first place! Such that; 1- you have the right to believe in what gives you good purpose and hope in life even if you can not prove it for logical purposes 2- you are free to logically evaluate any claim made about God because if you don't do so you only prove that God is dishonest with reality and thus making your belief in the creator to be meaningless 3- you r under civil obligation (as a citizen of the universe) to respect science as the only available tool through which reality can be decided subjectively as Godship creative ability

When there is still no civilisation that can prove promising in "guarantying" our future; I think beliefs drive us in taking risks subject to the probability density of "realising" the intended results of our efforts! I think that with out such beliefs in future unguaranted out comes; very few if not all would take some calculated logical risk (if; then; or; else---)

There is no limit to skepticism;but there is a challenge that it requires proof backed by natural evidence here and there; through which reality can sort your skepticism out scientifically(through non contradictions) and conventionally(through Occam's razor)! Only that in modern paradigm(say the ubiquitous paradigm); the fundamental tenets of the philosophy of science became scientificall self evident through consistent and complete mathematical logic- such that our curiosity and inquisitivity are justified naturally or pragmatically but not dogmatically

We don't know why? That is why we expect paradigm shift! But given an answer we can know whether is is true or otherwise. And if we can verify our knowledge of a claim, then we can prove it and assume " why" through verifications Of course the Occam's razor is one of the fundamental tenents of the philosophy of science which is still surviving the challenges of evidences tilldate not just for epistemic purposes but also for practical purposes! We need effective and efficient feedback mechanism through which information signals can be processed accurately in form of subjectively or objectively recognisable reality No more no less

So much skepticism

Reality is reality; but our understanding of it has been changing and it will continue in that trend-may be! Yesterday it was 1-static(running organically in an anthropic mind or processed mechanically as a computer program) Today 2- it is dynamical through relativity or complexity or proportionality or utility Tomorrow 3- it is ubiquitous(static and dynamic) cybernetically and recognised through communication and control- communication is dynamical ( see different perceptions) and control is static ( see laws that govern the dynamical patterns of physical organisation) After tomorrow; 4-It can be some different understanding of reality but the reality remains the same Inquisitive and curiosities-see skepticism

If you aren't sleeping

I really don't get what you are saying

Fitting is justified through social differentiation and expectancy is justified through social integration

All you said about evolution is what makes it silly! Its indifference as you say led to the evolution of reasonable agents who are reasonable enough to judge between good and evil Secondly; if evolution allows morality to evolve through social expectancy, then if some one starts to expect more through inquisitivity and curiosity (skepticism); then i don't know why in the above perspective skepticism doesnt appears to be immoral

Science does not establish facts-its reality that does this! Neither does it prove any thing for its proof to be 100%correct- its math.that does this absolutely that's why mathmatical proofs are either true or false but not in betweenh! What science does is to refute(through evidence)explore; analyse; formulate; implement verifiable claims about reality-andt these verifications are challengeable or questionable based on reality; it is only reality that is unquestionable inform of existing facts. Does this make science unreliable? No! And above.all we have no better alternative through which our knowledge of reality.can be questioned and challenged and our ignorance of reality can be solved! Take for example when data shows that the cosmic scale appear to be anthropic;isotropic; flat and homogeneous. This becomes a big blow to the mechanical scientific point of view of the universe but not a scientific blow since cybernetics comes at the fore front of solving this puzzle of reality in a scientific way. With mechanics you find that you have to fix some causal intent or goal or purpose or meaning to solve this cosmogenesis puzzle in a dynamical universe and worse still when you have to fix the puzzle of intent; purpose; goal and meaning inherent in the evolutionary game of.anthropic agents through things like anthropic principle or emergency-only to violate the law of energy conservation. And this is not a scientific problem but a mechanical problem cause it is not the case with cybernetics. With cybernetics; mechanics is just part of a bigger cybernetic puzzle; such that;semiclassical mechanical paradigm is a special case of relative gravity in relativity limits through thermodynamics; and relative paradigm is a special case of complex interactions in complex limits through complex dynamics; and complexity paradigm as synchronous and asynchronous responsiveness of variant and invariant proportions in classical limits(proportional limits)through fluid dynamics in proportional limits; and roportionality paradigm as asymptotic distributions of changing configurations in utility limits through chaotic inflation; and the paradigm of utility as decidable changing configurations of reality through cybernetcs! There are two challenges with this decidability The first one is technical:what does consistent and complete realities mean? It has nothing to do with absolutism or finality: but that reality is efficient and effective. Such that; even though some systems conserve information but cannot retrieve it; the physical properties of infirmation can not be deterched from physical dynamics! Because information is just the pattern of existence. When we say.that this "is"; we simply refer to the predictive capacity of a given data which is justified;proved and verified inform of existing patterns. And it is these patterns that provides the template upon which the reality of the universe is recognised! And that the old mechanical view of assuming that reality is moving out of control and we can only use.force to put it back under control is substuted by the cybernetic view where there is a reason behind what ever happens! And the more we discover these reasons the more chances we have to check our civilisation and balance it with reality through communication and self control! The second challenge of this decidability is just psychological! And it centres around the time bound of this decidability. Though the communication space of conserving this information seems to be exponential and sometimes measured in light years; the communication time of conserving this information is polynomial! Else no one would have observed any star from earth and communications based on GPS; internet; self driving cars; automated mechanics; ubba etc would be impossible and meaningless

Philosophy justifies what happens in the proof world(patternly a mathematical one) and what happens in the verification world (formally; a.scientific one) the way science verifies what happens in the propositional world(populary a philosophical one) and in the mathmatical world. As math proves what happens in propositional world and verification world. Religion has nothing to do with any of the above since it is based on unchallengeable and in questionable submissiveness and conformity! No compromise with alternative justifications or proof or verification

Organising the knowledge of what? And accumulating the knowledge of existence for what? Yes scientific knowledge does not depend on fundamental or absolute truth but only works with that truth which is consistent and complete with reality for the purpose of checking our civilisation and balance it with reality. Semiclassical mechanics became a special case of relative gravity and this mechanical point of view is still consistent and complete with reality up to justifiable and provable and verifiable degree of quantitative accuracy and cybernetic degree of certainty

The universe only allowed one agent through which it self controls its past ; present and the future- and that contrpller is called physical laws! I doubt that it.needs some one else