Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . .

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 28/10/2024 10:22, D wrote:

  On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:

  On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
 

"Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."

 As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
that state ...

    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
   about a week before elections.
    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
   but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
   correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
 

Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
 We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
 Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be proven true or false.
 

 The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades ago. Here's a hand!

 Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with 'something exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'
 Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in which a hand can be held up before he can perform the action.
 Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking (proper transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish, subjectively.

 Actually, the brilliance is that he does not. The hand is proof of the external world. The TM-guy does not cease to exist, and neither does the world. You can easily utilize the same proof as Moore. It is brilliant in its simplicity, and I think that is why some people don't get it. It is simply too "easy".
 Another extremely strong point in its favour is that it is actually the people who propose that there is no external world who need to come up with the arguments for it and so far, no one has been able to successfully convince the world at large, that the external world does not exist, by coming up with an alternative, that has iron clad proof.
 Another indication of the strength of the position of a material world existing is that about 70% of professional philosopher subscribe to this. This is of course not a proof, but a strong indication as well.

>
I think you are still stuck in the same dichotomy that transcendental idealism simply removes from the board.

Nope. Actually, there is only the material world. Transcendental idealism is a dead end. There is no proof that transcendental idealism is true, and massive proof that the material world exists.

Is it all in the mind or is the mind the product of it all?
TI says 'both, and neither'

The mind is material. This is proven.

Reality as we understand it is 'something else'  interpreted by 'our minds'

Reality as we understand it is what we see, hear, feel, directly and through augmentation. Science is the best method we have for learning about the external world.

There is no *proof* of any of this. These are metaphysical positions. Judged only by their *utility*. Models that are more or less useful

Metaphysics is a dead end. All there is, is the material world. But note that I agree with you, that we do use models to navigate the world, and usefulness is a good criteria for the model you use. This does not in any way disprove that there is no external world, but, to the contrary is yet another strong proof for a material world.

Their truth content is indecidable.

Nope. Plenty of experiments exist and I can also use my mental model of my room to prove easily where items are, that they don't change etc. by simple observation.

And anyone who claims otherwise has missed the boat

Incorrect. Idealists have missed the progress of philosophy and materialism.

And at least 90% of professional philosophers don't really understand metaphysics.

Ahh yes, you are right and everyone else is wrong. Simple to just produce a proof then? ;) I side with the 90%, but I would love for you to prove the 90% wrong, that would make you worthy of many prices and honors. So far, you're not doing very well I'm afraid.