Posts by Arthur Anderson49

rowdyotter25 said:MrBeast, look, just because our description of something isn't pinpoint accurate doesn't mean the thing itself isn't real. It’s basic logic—I exist right now, even if your entire perception of me is stuck inside the text of my posts. If you suddenly blinked out of existence, I wouldn't just vanish into thin air 😁
.
It's the same deal with colors; "color" is just the label we slap onto the way certain electromagnetic frequencies reflect back at us. Or take Pi—that's just our shorthand for the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter. And honestly, you can write that down with perfect, surgical precision; in math, at least, we have the luxury of actually knowing what we're talking about
.
So, how can a ratio exist if it's supposedly just a product of human perception? It exists as a fundamental rule, a pattern baked into the universe that stays put whether anyone is watching or not. Maybe some alien intelligence out there perceives reality through a totally different lens and wouldn't bother naming it, but that doesn't change the fact that the math behind it is absolute
.
Even if we couldn't wrap our heads around the decimal expansion of Pi, we could still manipulate it algebraically simply because we understand what it represents. You just invent a symbol for it and call it a day. At the end of the day, worrying about how precisely we can write it out in base ten is a completely irrelevant limitation
.

Okay, I can roll with that, but honestly, this means we really need to nail down a definition for the verb "to exist" just so this debate can actually move forward.

I'm not so sure that any kind of "ratio" in nature actually "exists." A ratio doesn't have a purpose or a function of its own. It only "exists" if there's an observer there to see it.

A ratio is the result of a comparison, and a comparison is an action, not a physical object. You can't have the action without someone or something doing the comparing. There are only the objects that *could* potentially be compared—but only if there's a comparator present.

In that sense, I'm also arguing that numbers don't exist. Numbers only exist as a possibility that comes to life once a counter shows up.

rowdyotter25 said:I gotta say, MrBeast, you're totally out of your depth here, which honestly catches me off guard. It happens to the best of us, I guess. 😉

Look, sure, we can't write out pi as a clean decimal, but we can express it perfectly through multiple different methods. Besides, pi exists because it defines the relationship between a circle's diameter and its circumference. Sure, pi is an abstract concept, but the existence of that mathematical relationship doesn't depend on whether some guy in a lab coat perceives it or not. Humans just picked a specific language to describe what's already happening.

Even if humanity vanished tomorrow, nobody would be calling it "pi," but circles and their ratios would still exist exactly as they are right now.

It's the same deal with numbers—they're just our way of mapping out patterns that are baked into reality. "1" doesn't exist without us, but the concept of "oneness" or having a single distinct object is a property of the universe regardless of us. So, numbers exist as a framework built on top of those truths, whether anyone is around to notice them or not.

"If a tree falls down in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Hmm... honestly speaking, I’m not exactly on "home turf" anywhere on this forum. As a universal Diletant, I don't really have a "home turf" at all, except for my narrow professional field, which I can't even write about here anyway. It's always a bit of a gamble for a Diletant to speak up publicly, no matter the topic. But hey, isn't the risk always worth the potential payoff?

I suspect that when it comes to numbers, you and I might be talking about two totally different things. I’m not denying a single point you made! Of course, we can express Pi with enough precision for any practical application you could ever need. But the actual concept of a "number" doesn't exist out there in the wild. Ratios don't exist in nature either. A ratio only pops into existence inside our heads once we start comparing things. And then, we stumble upon a ratio that’s a little tricky to express using our standard rules, so we start dreaming up ways to deal with it. We invent increasingly complex conventions just so we can define things a bit better.

It’s the exact same deal as with colors. What we call a "color" can be expressed precisely enough for every practical use imaginable. We can replicate that "color" whenever we want. Yet, the color we're talking about doesn't actually exist in nature; it's just a convention we use to describe the subjective result of our perception. It's like how we invented centrifugal force—we can measure it incredibly accurately, even though it doesn't "exist" as a physical object, but rather as another one of our handy little conventions to help us wrap our heads around how nature works.

The fact that our perception is good enough to let us navigate the world without constantly walking into trees or getting eaten by lions doesn't mean we've actually cracked the code of reality or that our definitions of its elements perfectly match the truth.

If we had actually achieved that, science, religion, and philosophy wouldn't have any work left to do! And as you know, they are all staying extremely busy. They're still happily tinkering away at definitions, trying to make them just a little bit better.

"If a tree falls down in a forest, but noone is around to see it, did it make a sound?"
It did, sure, but even if we *are* standing right there, are we truly capable of perceiving what sound it actually makes?

There was once a famous author (who's a bit controversial nowadays, but used to be huge) who wrote about sailing along the Mississippi with a friend. They're out on a sailboat, and the friend spends an hour describing every single wind that blows through that region and how a sailor can use them. Every wind is unique—its strength, temperature, humidity, direction, reliability, and so on. There are probably two dozen of them. But the author admits, quite honestly, that his entire experience of those winds up to that point could be summed up in just one word: "blowing."

Now, you also have to realize that the image that sailor had of those winds is still essentially just "blowing," just on a much deeper level. The true picture is such that it's currently impossible to describe using any human tools we have.

And that brings us a little closer to the level where humans actually perceive nature and the skill with which we try to describe and define it.

ironmarlin1 said:But that right there is the contradiction. It couldn’t be more glaring. You’re essentially arguing that my statement—"Nature is an objective fact"—is itself merely a subjective judgment.

Alright, I think I follow your train of thought; you’re suggesting that my conviction—this belief that nature is objective and exists regardless of me—is, in its own right, a subjective notion.

That isn't what I'm attempting to say; rather, that is your interpretation of my position. My point is that value judgments are also objective, which allows me to sidestep the very "trap" of contradiction you seem to have fallen into. 😉

Fair enough, in a sense that holds true; though, one might argue even your own existence is debatable; perhaps I am just engaged in a mental monologue, debating myself while you exist merely as a digital avatar within the theater of my consciousness.

That said, leaning into that level of abstraction is utterly useless when one actually wants to grapple with moral questions. If I want to engage with ethics, I cannot afford to spin endlessly in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world can be deemed objective. In a universe where everything is purely subjective, morality ceases to exist entirely.

The thing is, you're the one who drifted toward solipsism by creating this rigid divide between the subject and nature, not me. I am arguing that value judgments possess objectivity.

The standard, let's call it 'common sense' view, is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It’s at this level, naturally, that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' find their footing.

Once again, you can't make claims about the world while trying to stand with one foot outside of it, as you are doing now; that is a direct path to solipsism. You claim your perception is that the world is objective, yet you immediately pivot to saying that very perception is subjective. 🤷

Honestly, talking to you is getting a little frustrating, so I think I’ll just bow out here. (And just to be clear, calling this 'frustrating' isn't me making a value judgment—it's not a dig at you personally—it's just me describing my own experience!) Since our back-and-forth isn't really getting us anywhere, and I'm guessing you aren't gaining much from it either, it’ll probably be more productive if I stop poking at this. I'm heading back over to the women's corner.

ironmarlin1 said:But you're tripping over your own logic here, given what you said about nature earlier:

It just exists.

Yet, that’s just your specific interpretation of nature. And, if we follow your own reasoning:

My view of nature is a convention.

So, you aren't being particularly clear, are you? 😉

I honestly don't see what's confusing about this or where the contradiction is supposed to be.

Nature just *is*. It’s an objective fact that exists completely independent of me. My perception of that nature, though? That’s necessarily subjective—it depends entirely on how my senses are working and how I choose to interpret all that incoming data.

The object itself and our perception of that object are two totally separate things.

EDIT:
Okay, I think I see where you're going with this; you're saying my idea—my actual belief that nature is objective and independent—is itself a subjective thing.

Alright, fine, on some abstract level, sure! I mean, maybe even your own existence is up for debate, right? Maybe I'm just sitting here in my own head having a conversation with myself, and you're just one of those little avatars of my consciousness.

But honestly, that kind of deep-dive thinking is totally impractical when you're trying to tackle moral questions. If I want to actually weigh in on ethics, I can't just spin around in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world is considered "real" or objective. Because let's face it: in a world where everything is purely subjective, morality just doesn't exist.

The standard (let's call it 'common sense') approach is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It's at that practical level that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' actually make sense and become useful.

ironmarlin1 said:That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Look, nature isn't some set convention. Honestly? My whole perception of nature *is* the convention. That’s why I have to stay on my toes and be constantly mindful of that one specific fact: if I’m not careful, I’ll end up mistaking my own perception for actual reality. Think about a physicist for a second. They’re doing this dance every single day! They’ve got their perceptions, their concepts, and their conventions, but they’re constantly putting all of them through the ringer to test them out. Of course, even their testing has its limits—let's be real. Total objectivity is basically this unreachable North Star. But isn't that the whole point? You strive toward that ideal, you constantly doubt what you think you know, and you never stop questioning and refining your reach. We can't just take things at face value, right? We shouldn't treat anything like an absolute truth—not even stuff like "good" or "evil." Everything is up for debate!

Dennis Rogers6 said:But why wouldn't numbers "just exist"? Is there even a question to be asked there?

I can't help but feel the world is drifting in that exact direction regarding religion, too. In fact, looking back at history, hasn't religion played quite a significant role in facilitating that very decline?

And what about something like radical extremist fanaticism?

To my mind, the reality is quite the opposite—I find I am only truly free once I cast aside all preconceived convictions. As Nietzsche so poignantly put it, "convictions are prisons."

Well, if they actually were, don't you think we would have stumbled onto them by now? I mean, come on, we definitely had our moments where things clicked before!

ironmarlin1 said:If that's the case, I struggle to see why nature itself wouldn't be considered just another layer of convention.

We have plenty of those kinds of blunt, subjective human constructs. Take centrifugal force, for instance. Or even the concept of pressure.

So, if those are just tools, what exactly qualifies as an objective "tool" or object in your view?

There are even more glaringly subjective social conventions, such as our notions of 'good' and 'evil.' These attempt to categorize phenomena far more complex than any physical measurement, and as a result, they are even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

Based on everything you’ve laid out so far, I’m having a hard time spotting where you draw the line between a purely subjective category and something truly objective.

But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

Wait, what kind of arguments against the existence of numbers are you even throwing at me? I’m just saying that in the natural world numbers don't actually exist. They’re just a human convention we cooked up. Sure, they’re a bit primitive and oversimplified compared to how nature actually works, but hey, they get the job done pretty well—especially after thousands of years of us tweaking and refining them.

We have tons of these blunt, subjective tools that humans created. A classic example would be things like centrifugal force. Or pressure.

And if you want to get really wild, look at social conventions like "good" and "evil." Those deal with phenomena that are way more complex than physical forces, so they're even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

ironmarlin1 said:Does man serve as the metric for the value of pi? Or is that constant just sitting there, perfectly indifferent to our existence?

But let's circle back to what we were discussing. What’s your take on the way the cave allegory and my own reasoning hold up? Do you truly believe Christianity is the root of all evil?

If you ask me, any religion carries the potential for darkness. Sure, religions have their moments of genuine good, but when you drop them into environments steeped in ignorance, you almost inevitably see a twisted, malevolent shadow emerge. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the most wicked versions of faith are simply the result of taking the messages found in "holy" books to their most literal, unyielding conclusion. If you consider the Old Testament de facto to be a manual for genocide, then a book containing those instructions is inherently evil. It’s an objective reality! 😁

Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Daniel Anderson68 said:I actually figured it out in the meantime if anyone else is looking for it—check out those autocorrect options in the tools!!!

Fair enough, but look—it just means, like I was saying before, that you might end up with a lowercase first letter at the start of a sentence instead of an entire paragraph being messed up.

So, you're still gonna have to stay on top of things and make sure you're actually starting every single sentence with a capital letter yourself.

Daniel Anderson68 said:Hey everyone,
does anyone know if there's a way to turn this off? I'm talking about when I hit ENTER to start a new line, and it automatically capitalizes the first letter... can I just make it stay lowercase instead?!!!

I'm specifically talking about Office 2003—specifically Word 2003—but honestly, does this work for any other program too?

Thanks!

I'm pretty sure you can only disable that on a sentence-by-sentence basis. See, the software thinks every time you hit enter for a new paragraph, you're starting a brand new sentence. But here's the catch: if you shut that setting off, it won't auto-capitalize *anything* at the start of a sentence anymore, so you'll have to manually fix every single one yourself.

steelstag4 said:I’m a little confused by the logic there—how does a British production qualify as "Hollywood trash"?

That said, my take on the film aligns with what most of you are saying: the movie is decent, but Helen is nothing short of brilliant. 🙂

And the King (well, Prince Philip) is a total legend too. What a character, and those observations he makes about the situation... pure gold. 🤣

For me, the only annoying part was that whenever he popped up on screen, I kept expecting Grandmother's little pig to come running out of nowhere!

Jeffrey Johnson4 said:She actually went on record admitting she voted for herself. Well, at least we have that much honesty to work with.
To be honest, my understanding of America as a nation governed by the rule of law comes primarily from Hollywood movies and TV dramas; whether that holds true in reality is something I still find myself questioning.

Cheers to you! Over those few years I spent there, I really did get the vibe that things actually run by the book. Now, look—I'm definitely not a lawyer, so I can't give you a legal breakdown or anything, but just speaking as an everyday citizen and someone who's been in the business world? That was my take on it.

Jeffrey Johnson4 said:I have no reason to doubt the acting prowess of Helen Mirren, and she likely earned her Oscar given her sheer talent (though I haven't actually sat down to watch the film yet—I'll have to consider that possibility). However, I cannot shake the nagging thought that she essentially cast a vote for herself. As an Academy member, she openly remarked that she would never forgive herself if she missed out on the Oscar, and it's quite possible that her own vote was the deciding factor in her victory.
Truly appalling.

Sure, she might be an Academy member, but I highly doubt anyone would actually vote in a category where they're nominated—and honestly, I don't think the rules even allow it! That would be such a disaster and just completely un-American. We have to remember that the USA, no matter what people think of them, is still a nation of laws!

I mean, I was already a massive fan of Helen Mirren, but after seeing this movie? I’m officially adding her to my list of absolute icons... the woman is pure perfection!

Arthur Anderson49 said:I think this point needs a bit more careful scrutiny.
To my mind, dogma is a core component of religion.
But is it an essential part of faith? Not necessarily.
What actually constitutes faith is everything that springs directly from the individual—those truths a person arrives at on their own, without looking to an outside source.

Furthermore, just being certain about something you can't prove is precisely what makes you a believer. (And let's be clear, "theist" is a much narrower subset of being a "believer").
An agnostic would totally reject your whole system of moral accountability or anything else that requires a leap of faith rather than hard evidence.
So, I'm basically forced to categorize them as believers (even if they aren't theists).

Honestly, I feel like you and I are arguing more over semantics than actual substance here! You made a sharp distinction between faith and religion—which I didn't do—so your perspective might actually be the more accurate one.

As for me, I’m definitely not religious, but whether I’m truly "faithless"? Man, I haven't quite figured that out yet. Based on your logic, though, it sounds like I might be a believer after all!

If you're saying that believing in "moral accountability" implies a level of faith that disqualifies me from being an agnostic, then fine, I guess that's how it works. I'll have to go hunting for a new label, because being called a "believer" really rubs me the wrong way. It feels way too much like some politically correct catch-all term.

Is there a specific term for agnostics or atheists who have essentially expired and been tossed to the back of the shelf? haha!

Arthur Anderson49 said:your system isn't set in stone; it’s something you’ve built.
so, are you trying to say you can't actually tell right from wrong?

Well... I think I do know.

What you're getting at is that I’m some kind of believer. Honestly, I’m not so sure about that. If I believe there’s a line between good and evil, that’s just a moral framework to me, not necessarily a religious one. Even if I feel like that distinction is a fundamental law of nature, I still don't attribute it to anything divine.

I’m not ruling out the possibility, but I much prefer a physical explanation. You could call it "moral physics." Think about it—we have economic physics and even the physics of sociology; why wouldn't moral physics exist too?

You can't have faith without dogma, and personally, dogmas just get in my way. Physics doesn't deal in dogma. When a theory turns out to be wrong, physics just corrects itself. It isn't some single, eternal, unchanging truth. And it’s definitely not perfect.

(And no, I’m not a physicist. 🙂 )

William Gonzalez3 said:so you wouldn't actually be able to call yourself a true agnostic then.
you’d probably fall more into the believer category.

I don't know about that! I mean, a believer usually has this whole structured system they lean on, right? For me, it’s more like this vague, persistent gut feeling that good and evil are distinct things—that these categories exist independently of what we humans think, almost like they're governed by some kind of natural laws. It’s such an overwhelming thought; I honestly find it hard to even imagine a universe where that kind of moral divide doesn't exist! But at the end of the day, it's just a hunch and a lot of guesswork, not actual faith.

and if you already are, then there's really no reason to worry.

I really hope you're right about that!

William Gonzalez3 said:And that doesn't scare you or worry you even a little bit?

Well, I can't exactly say it doesn't! Since I'm not an atheist, I can't be 100% sure that nothing is waiting for me on the other side, so I wouldn't say I'm totally chill about it.

I’m a firm believer that there’s some kind of "moral accounting" happening out there—you know, where every good deed gets rewarded and every bad one gets punished.

Have you ever seen the movie Flatliners by Joel Schumacher? If you have, then you totally get what I'm talking about. Everything matters. Every single action, every thought, every little thing we fail to do. It all goes into the moral ledger, either in the credit or debit column.

And sooner or later, the time comes when the line is drawn, the balance is checked, and those big-ticket items get scrutinized under a microscope.

I won't lie—I definitely get nervous thinking about that final audit.

That's why I try my best to be a decent person. I aim to do good and cause as little harm as possible. Now, how successful I actually am at that? Well, that's another story entirely!

I realize that by strict Christian standards, that might not be enough, but hey, I don't really buy into all the rigid dogmas (even if I'm technically a Catholic).

All I can do is hope that the great accountant, if such a being exists, decides to be a little lenient with me.

William Gonzalez3 said:Agnostics are basically villains.
Just totally amoral and corrupt.
They’re just indecisive types who can't make up their minds about whether God exists or not, which makes them super easy to manipulate.
Honestly, I'd take one decent atheist—someone who knows for a fact there's no God—over fifty of these amoral, wishy-washy, easily led agnostics any day.
At least an atheist sins because they truly believe those laws imposed by a corrupt church shouldn't apply to them, unlike the blind followers.
But agnostics? They sin just because it's convenient.
Because they're nothing more than decadent hedonists.
Seriously, I've met tons of agnostics and every single one of them was smoking weed.

And not even to expand their consciousness or anything deep—just because it feels good!
It's honestly pathetic.
Agnosticism is pure decadence (and we all know decadence leads to ruin because it's fundamentally rotten).
It's entirely self-serving. And that's exactly why people should be atheists instead of agnostics.
People need to define themselves in relation to us and our laws, rather than just making up their own rules on the fly.

Man, I see so much of myself in what you wrote here.