nimblemarlin17, whenever you get a chance, could you put together something like this:
...Basically, we all know that space consists of an indescribable amount of empty space—which is negligible in volume (but then again, maybe not)—filled with matter in the form of stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and so on (and perhaps even antimatter, dark matter, black holes, and those other recent discoveries).
Now, if you're actually getting praise from a philosophy teacher for saying that, it either means she really likes you or she definitely bought her degree... 😁
But hey, don't take it personally! Here are a few questions for you.
1. How do you define "empty space"? What actually *is* it? 2. How do you define matter? What constitutes matter? 3. This specific quote;
Such relationships between matter and empty space simply led me to conclude that this division of space extends infinitely into a split between empty space and negligibly small amounts of matter.
It makes me wonder about the concept of "infinity" and what "endless" truly means. Are these concepts actual realities, or just mental constructs we've made up? And can you actually prove infinity through logic?
Why don't we all take a moment to share our thoughts on everyone else in this sub-forum? You know—what kind of people they seem to be, their general vibe, how they think, their temperaments... basically just your honest impressions of the other folks hanging out here...
I honestly think this could be a huge help when it comes time to vote for the best forum member of the year...😉 I'll be dropping my own take a little later on...
Is a human being actually anything more than just their brain? It’s one of those deep questions that keeps you up at night—you know, the kind of thing you find yourself debating over a late-night burger at a diner somewhere in Chicago. I mean, if we look at it from a purely biological standpoint, everything we feel, every memory we hold onto, and every crazy idea we have seems to stem from those gray cells firing away inside our skulls. But then, you have to wonder... there’s got to be something else, right? There’s a certain "spark" or a sense of self that feels much bigger than just electrical impulses and chemical reactions. Is there a soul, or maybe some deeper philosophy behind why we exist? I'd love to hear what you guys think about this.
We just wrapped up this massive, deep-dive discussion about the whole soul versus body thing—you know, consciousness, perception, all that good stuff. It was pretty wild how far we went; one minute we were dissecting hardcore materialistic theories, and the next, we were pivoting into more spiritual territory. We covered everything from actual scientific data to the more "out there" pseudoscientific ideas, not to mention plenty of philosophy and religious perspectives. It wasn't all just abstract theory, though. A few people actually shared some really intense personal experiences—talk of those "direct path" realizations and deep soul insights. The vibe in the thread was all over the place, too—it swung from super serious and academic to totally casual and laid-back. It was quite a ride!
And then there's the saint and Kurba... part two.
This is such a hilarious topic—honestly, that opening post by the vještac was pure gold. It really gets you in the headspace to just sit back and meditate on things for a bit. I will say though, the tone leaned pretty heavily into that New Age vibe at times, so if you’re one of those super hardcore, old-school scholars, you might find yourself feeling a little out of place!😁 You really ought to give this a read—I think a lot of you will find some serious inspiration here...😉
The big question.
This is such a fascinating discussion—it feels almost like reading a deep-dive essay or a review, mostly centering on the whole debate between atheism, theism, and all their different flavors. Definitely worth taking a close look at those posts from Mr. Pes, though. 😉Honestly, just like those top-tier takes from Secundus—which are always so incredibly solid and spot-on, even if they might be a bit hard to swallow if you aren't already deep into the subject matter—this is such a great thread. It’s exactly the kind of thing that gets people thinking and actually digging into new ideas and concepts.
So, I just witnessed this intense philosophical debate between an atheist and a believer—it was one of those deep, late-night conversations that really makes you sit back and think!
PBE really nailed it with this one—they laid out almost every major philosophical argument for and against the existence of God and the whole concept of the divine in such an engaging, easy-to-follow way. It’s honestly one of those fascinating, thought-provoking topics that manages to dive deep without getting boggeded down in heavy scholasticism or acting like they have some absolute truth to prove to anyone. If you want the best parts, you should definitely take a look at Shady-eve's posts and those witty takes from Vick... they're worth the read!😉
The ethics of killing other living beings—man, that’s a heavy one to dive into, isn't it? It's one of those topics that really makes you sit back, grab a coffee, and just stare out the window for a while. I mean, when you start peeling back the layers of what we consider "right" or "wrong" regarding life and death, things get messy fast. Is there a fundamental line we shouldn't cross, or is everything just a matter of survival and circumstance? It’s a rabbit hole that goes deep, and honestly, I don't think anyone ever truly finds a single, perfect answer that satisfies everyone.
The vibe was super laid-back—honestly, such a great turnout too! There was a really lively energy in the room. We ended up diving deep into some pretty heavy stuff, like ethics, vegetarianism, and even the whole concept of killing itself. It was quite the conversation.
Is the idea of not killing animals actually ethical—or are we all just losing our minds?
This topic actually has some pretty solid ground under it—we’ve mostly been diving into whether animals can truly think, how that process works, and then using those findings to draw our own conclusions about the whole "vegetarian ethics" debate. Just a heads-up though—this isn't exactly for anyone who prefers to skip over long-form reading!
Meta12 vs. ironbadger31 vs. everyone else...
It’s time for the big showdown—a deep dive into Christianity and Christian morality, centered around Christ and the Gospel. Honestly, it's mostly just me wrestling with my own insignificance in the grand scheme of things. 😁 Hey Mete12, about today’s Secundus session... We really dove deep into some ontological arguments—I even touched on a few alternative theories regarding Christ's existence, and I definitely threw in plenty of references to Nietzsche. Just a heads-up though: if you aren't really into those heavy scholastic debates, this might not be your cup of tea! 😉)...
And here comes another deep, heavy question about absolutely nothing...
Pandora10, as usual, loves to drift off into those deep waters of pure metaphysics... Honestly, it was such an intense mental workout—definitely one of those topics that leaves your brain feeling a little fried after you really start digging into it. The whole vibe of the discussion was pretty hazy and vague, too; we just ended up circling around without ever actually landing on a solid conclusion. 😁... "nothing" is still a total mystery...
Zen is just Zen!
Our resident master of all things Zen and deep thoughts has really tapped into the heart of Eastern philosophy here... Some people might think this whole thread is a waste of time, others might find a little spark of light in it, and I’m sure there are plenty who will just laugh at the various stories and little anecdotes illustrating how Zen philosophy actually plays out in real life... My advice? Just come at this with an open mind...😉
Aganorov corner....(updated) The Agijev club for devotees
This thread is basically a highlight reel of every argument, insult, spat, jab, and provocation that's ever popped up in our discussions... It's a total mess 😁, not even remotely related to actual philosophy, but honestly, it's a great place to have a good laugh...😁
Richard Ruiz5 said:Some recent estimates suggest the American Bible could be as old as 7,000—maybe even 10,000—years. We've only actually translated a tiny fraction of it, so who knows what else is tucked away in those pages? Maybe once we finally crack the code, things will start making sense. For instance, we might actually learn about those advanced Vimanas capable of turning invisible, or those ancient weapons that could somehow target fertility in women.
Look, you really ought to have some kind of proof—or at least a solid lead—to back up what you're claiming here. You got anything?😉
1. science and religion 2. Wu Wei 3. Is atheism a decay of the human spirit?
Post of the Year on Reddit:
1. In the science and religion thread, by Sound & Fury 2. In the Wu Wei thread, by Shaman 3. In the Is atheism a decay of the human spirit? thread, by K-101013
User of the Year on Reddit:
1. Sound & Fury 2. Porto 3. Secundus/Meta12/Agadir😁
Topic of the Year on Reddit: 1. topic name 2. topic name 3. topic name
Post of the Year on Reddit: 1. In the topic name thread, post 111111, by ironbadger31 2. In the topic name thread, post 222222, by ironbadger31 3. In the topic name thread, post 333333, by ironbadger31
User of the Year on Reddit: 1. user1 2. user2 3. user3
Special award nominations Award name for topic: topic name Award name for forum user: user Award name for post: In the topic name thread, post 111111, by ironbadger31
If you haven't checked out the a> or the Grammy Awards 2003 FAQ, you should definitely head over to 😉. Basically, Reddit decided to go big this year by hosting a massive awards ceremony to celebrate our best users, hottest topics, and all-time favorite posts. Since we hang out in the philosophy section, we’re running our own little competition here too—so feel free to nominate your favorites! Democracy is a beautiful thing, though it does come with some responsibility (if you say otherwise, 😁). Anyway, I think the gist of it is pretty clear, but if you have any burning questions, just drop them quickly right here or shoot one of the mods a private message .
Since we’re in the philosophy sub, and we all love to ponder the deep stuff (in the true sense of the word😉), I’d love for everyone to jump in with at least one suggestion.
Each of you can nominate up to three topics, three users, and/or three specific posts, plus you can suggest three special award categories. I’ve laid out a template below and broken down exactly how to fill it out.
Submitting Topics
Let's take it step-by-step. First, browse through the philosophy section looking for those threads that really stuck with you or were just top-tier quality. Once you find one, open it up, and look at your address bar (that long strip in Explorer where you type URLs)—you'll see a long string of text 😁. At the very end of that string, there's a number—basically the unique ID for that topic. It looks something like "www.reddit.com...threadid=11111".
Just highlight that number and copy it (using Ctrl+C or by right-clicking and hitting "copy"). That little string of digits is the topic's fingerprint.
All you have to do now is paste that number into the form below, replacing the placeholder "111111".
Submitting Posts
This works almost exactly the same way, except instead of picking an entire thread, you're choosing one specific post that blew your mind. Every single post has its own ID number too. You can find it by hovering your cursor over the "quote" button for that specific post. So, once you find that one post that totally gripped you😁, just click "quote," and that long URL will pop up in your address bar again. Just like before, grab the number at the end. It’ll look something like "www.reddit.com........&postid=111111". Copy that number and swap out the "111111" in the form.
I've provided the template below for you to fill out. Instead of leaving it as "Topic Name," just type in the actual title. Easy as that.😁
A few quick ground rules:
1. Nominations stay open until we decide they're closed. 😁
2. Once the first round of nominations wraps up, we'll move to a voting phase to pick the winners, using the same process.
3. Each user can nominate a maximum of three topics, posts, or users from the philosophy section this year.
4. We'll be tallying the results regularly, updating them, and posting the progress right here. Just a heads-up: this thread is strictly for nominations, NOT for chatting or debating.
5. You get to set the criteria! Pick based on whatever you want—the smartest, most interesting, most original, most educational, or even the absolute dumbest or funniest topic, post, or user.
6. You don't *have* to explain why you're nominating something, though you're more than welcome to. Just know that any replies specifically arguing against a nomination will be deleted.
7. Any nominations that don't follow the rules (like a broken link, for example) won't be counted.
Finally, here’s the template... (just hit "quote" to get it in a format you can actually fill out easily)
😁 Everything is accounted for—and just to be clear, I never claimed this was my own text😉.
Here’s the link. Honestly, the author has some really sharp insights, and it's definitely worth diving into this "palimpsest"😉... This specific snippet fit our discussion perfectly...
Cheers LD, and please, hang out with us in the philosophy section more often!
If you look up at the top right corner of your screen, you'll see a few buttons like "Settings," "Sign Up," "Calendar," and "Members"—just go ahead and click on "Settings."
That should pop open your inbox, and there's your message waiting for you!
I think we drifted a little off course with all this talk about God, so let’s pull things back to center for a second...
Honestly, humans have always been obsessed with finding a way to escape the physical body. And hey, can you blame us?
The material world is just absolute chaos. If you look at some of the earliest "religious" traces—like those Neanderthal burials—you start to see the seeds of a belief in immortality. Even most modern religions (meaning everything after the Paleolithic era) carry this underlying Gnostic doubt, or even an outright hostility toward the body and the physical world. Even today, certain "primitive" tribes, or even just simple folks in rural areas, hold onto concepts of immortality and out-of-body experiences (what some call ecstasy) without necessarily hating their physical selves.
That Gnostic influence builds up slowly—kind of like how a tiny bit of arsenic won't kill you, but enough will—until it eventually becomes pathological. Gnostic dualism represents the extreme end of that hatred, where every single value is shifted from the flesh to the spirit. That mindset is basically what defines our "civilization." You can actually trace a similar path through the history of warfare. Hunter-gatherers used to practice a sort of ritualized fighting (think of those traditions among the Yanoma people or other Native American tribes where a young man might have to defeat an opponent without taking a single hit).
To me, "real" war is really just religion and economics (which is just politics, really) using different tools. Historically, true warfare didn't even kick off until the Neolithic period, when priests invented the concept of "scarcity" and the "warrior caste" emerged. (And look, I totally disagree with anyone saying war is just an extension of hunting). World War II felt like the last "real" war. After that, we entered the era of hyperreal war, which started during Vietnam because of the rise of television, and reached its shameful peak during the Gulf War in 1991. Hyperreal war isn't about economics anymore; it doesn't even serve the survival of the Country.
A ritualized fight is intentional and non-hierarchical (commanders are just temporary); a "real" war is always mandatory and strictly hierarchical; but hyperreal war is purely imaginary and psychologically internalized—it's "pure war." In the first case, you risk your body; in the second, you sacrifice your body; but in the third, the body simply vanishes. (As P. Clasters points out in *The Archaeology of Violence*). Modern science is also making this anti-materialist turn, and the dialectical result of this clash between science and religion has, in a way, turned science itself into a religion. Science, which is supposed to be the study of material reality, paradoxically dissolves the materiality of that very reality. Science has always functioned as a kind of priesthood—a branch of cosmology, or an ideology meant to justify "things as they are." The way post-classical physics deconstructs reality mirrors the vacuum of unreality that makes up the "State."
Back in the day, maybe the idea of Paradise on Earth made sense, but today, the State is nothing more than the management of Images. It isn't a "force" anymore; it's a disembodied pattern of information. Just as ancient Babylonian cosmology was used to justify Babylonian power, the finality of modern science serves the purpose of the "Final State"—this post-nuclear, "information-based" nation. At least, that's how the New Paradigm would explain it. And everyone seems to just accept the axiomatic premises of this New Paradigm. It’s actually quite a spiritual thing, if you think about it.
Even the New Age movement, with all its Gnostic leanings, embraces this New Science and its increasing spirituality, searching for texts that validate its worldview. Meditation and cybernetics are practically walking hand-in-hand now. Of course, this "information state" still needs the support of police forces and prison systems that would make Nebuchadnezzar himself shudder and send even the priests of Moloch into a fit of terror. Meanwhile, "modern science" still can't wash the blood off its hands from its near-successful "conquest of Nature"—which was really just civilization's greatest triumph over the body.
But honestly, who cares? Everything is "relative," right? I guess we just have to leave the body behind as we evolve. Maybe it happens in a "quantum leap." In the meantime, though, the constant mediation of Society—pumped through our media machines—just intensifies our alienation from ourselves by forcing our attention toward information rather than direct, lived experience.
In that sense—and I really mean this—the media has taken on this almost priestly, religious role. It feels like they’re offering us a way to transcend our physical selves by redefining the spirit as mere information. See, the whole point of information is to create an Image—this sacred, iconic cluster of data that hijacks the "material body principle." It basically swaps out our lived, embodied experience for this incorporeal, indestructible kind of ecstasy.
Consciousness becomes something you can just "download" from the Internet, strip away from our animal nature, and immortalize as pure data. We aren't talking about a ghost in the machine anymore; it’s more like a machine-as-ghost—the machine acting as the Holy Spirit, the ultimate middleman that translates us from our fleshly bodies into mere streaks of Light. To me, virtual reality is essentially cybernetic cognition.
It’s about plugging in and leaving Mother Earth behind forever. Every branch of science seems to be pushing toward this universal paradigm—both in hard science and in how we live our social lives. Back in the day, classical physics was what gave birth to Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, and all those other Modern ideologies.
Now, post-classical science is throwing out a whole new set of ideas that are being applied to the social sphere: relativity, quantum "unreality," cybernetics, information theory, and so on. Aside from a few outliers, the trend in post-classical thought is definitely moving toward this massive "spiritualization" of everything. You’ve got some black hole theorists sounding like literal Pauline theologians, while certain folks in information theory are starting to sound like true Manichaeans.
Socially speaking, these paradigms feed right into this rhetoric of being "bodiless"—something that would have made a 3rd-century desert hermit or a 17th-century New England Puritan blush with embarrassment. But today? It’s all wrapped up in the language of post-industrial, postmodern, consumerist madness.
The thing is, all our conversations are infected by these underlying paradigm assumptions. They're really just one-sided assertions, yet we treat them as if they were the absolute Truth of Reality itself. For instance, because everyone assumes computers represent a giant leap toward "artificial intelligence," we somehow fall into the trap of thinking that buying a faster computer will actually make *us* smarter.
So, what do you guys think? Are we actually going somewhere, or just spinning our wheels? 😉😁
hollowpilot9 said:ironbadger31, I actually read those Direct Messages ages ago... so, if you want my advice, you should probably check out KMB instead.
Fleming said:Could we actually put together an anthology published by the forum??? 😁 And what would the financial side of things even look like?
Haha, honestly? It could totally happen—but man, I have no clue how we'd navigate all those copyright headaches and legal hoops. Plus, there’s a ton of editing work ahead to get everything polished up...😉
This is a perfect example of how philosophy and science should actually work together.
You were talking earlier about the singularity—specifically how it might manifest as a kind of super-intelligence. I wanted to throw a little problem your way just to see how your theory holds up; I'm thinking we just scratch the surface here, but let's look at chaos theory.
So, deterministic chaos—which, if you want to get fancy, is often called nonlinear dynamics—is this incredibly complex field that tries to wrap its head around multi-dimensional systems. Nature is absolutely packed with these kinds of systems, and they show up everywhere: in weather patterns, shifts in the S&P 500, grocery store prices, or even population growth (kind of like that example we were digging into in this paper)... In a more philosophical sense, our lives are basically woven into these very same systems.
When you see these irregular, totally unexpected shifts in nonlinear systems, people just call it "chaos." If you want a working definition, chaos essentially describes a system's tendency to never—not even close—repeat its exact state. Because of that, the system ends up behaving erratically and rhythmically unpredictable. That’s the heart of it. But here’s the kicker: there is an underlying order hidden in all that mess. Even when a system looks totally chaotic and unruly, it's still following specific deterministic equations (mostly differential ones). By studying how these equations behave—especially how a system reacts in a chaotic state to tiny, microscopic tweaks in initial conditions—scientists stumbled upon what we call the "butterfly effect." It was first documented by E. Lorentz, a guy who, almost by accident, basically birthed a whole new branch of science.
So, what actually *is* the butterfly effect?
Picture this: one morning in Bangladesh, a caterpillar undergoes metamorphosis, turns into a butterfly, and takes its very first flight. As it flaps those wings, it’s going to cause tiny changes in the air currents around it. That minuscule shift could, down the line, trigger a massive storm in the USA that ends up costing lives. Does that sound like a stretch?
I'm sure a lot of people would push back on that... but from both a philosophical and a scientific standpoint, it's entirely possible. An innocent butterfly causing a disaster halfway across the world! You see the proof in those complex mathematical models where changing an initial parameter by a mere 0.0000001% results in a total overhaul of the entire system. So, using an analogy, we have to conclude that the butterfly effect—even that specific scenario with a butterfly in Bangladesh—could actually be real.
Now, we can't give you a perfectly objective scientific answer to this. We’re left with philosophy to offer us an explanation that’s, well, more or less acceptable.
Since you already brought up Lorentz, we should probably clarify his role in all this. Basically, Lorentz was the first to uncover the butterfly effect. He built a relatively simple computer program to simulate atmospheric conditions—things like wind speed, direction, temperature, and so on—though, obviously, it was a pretty crude model of the atmosphere compared to what we have now. His program could output all the observed parameters, and he could also feed it specific starting conditions.
Back in the mid-1961 era, Lorentz did something that paved the way for a whole new field of study. He took some previously calculated results, plugged them back into the program, and reran the atmospheric simulation. At first, the results looked identical to the first run, but as time went on, the deviations grew larger and larger until the two outcomes were completely different. The culprit? Lorentz had pulled a value of 0.63425 from the program, but he rounded it to 0.6343 when he re-entered it. That tiny, tiny difference caused a massive divergence in his simulations. Honestly, we saw an even more impressive version of this while working on this paper. For the first ten iterations across all three scenarios we looked at, things stayed comparable within a certain margin of error, but as the number of iterations climbed, that similarity just evaporated. That is the butterfly effect in all its glory!
When a system is extremely sensitive to its starting conditions, it’s the difference between total success and absolute disaster—especially when you're talking about entire populations. So, how does philosophy look at this? If a system is that reactive to stimuli, it means every single situation we find ourselves in carries enough weight to fundamentally reshape our future. Our emotions, our personalities, our outlooks, our intellect... all of it is constantly being molded by our environment, even as we, as individuals, work to shape that environment right back. It makes you wonder—from that perspective, can we actually claim that tiny, almost insignificant moments have the power to flip our entire lives upside down?
If Lorentz hadn't immediately grasped and been able to explain the phenomenon he was seeing, he might have just brushed it off as a "measurement error"—which, let's be honest, is a phrase that pops up all too often in science. It really makes you think about all those similar messy tangles in scientific history. I mean, how many experiments were conducted before Lorentz's that yielded the exact same results, but nobody knew how to interpret them correctly? How many butterfly wings actually triggered hurricanes? What do we really know about the world around us?! We can't know anything for certain in advance—there's always going to be some kind of "measurement error" lurking somewhere that drastically swings the outcome of an experiment, a proof, or a test. From a philosophical standpoint, we’re left asking: "Can we ever truly prove anything? Or even truly *know* anything?"
If we aren't confident in any answer that would satisfy that question, then we have to ask ourselves: how are we even functioning? At that point, the answer seems pretty obvious: life is chaos!
Is that a satisfying answer for you? What's your take on all this? Does your own worldview account for these kinds of problems?