The Future of Philosophy

hiddenpuma75 said:I have nothing but respect for philosophy, but I believe there is something "stronger," something far more universal, and something undeniably accurate and verifiable. It is the queen—if not the king—of everything. In essence, it is 😲 God 🙏

The absolute foundation of all things is mathematics 🙏

Or, to put it bluntly.

Numbers possess a precision that words simply can't match.

0100001111000111111

In other words.
Philosophy is, as Nietzsche suggested, merely a DESCRIPTION (a labeling) of the world rather than an explanation of it.

So, following the logic of Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth:

MATHEMATICS IS THE EXPLANATION😲

Nothing else holds the answers to everything.😲

I’m actually putting together a discussion on this topic. I want to explore the evolving idea that this entire existence is essentially a programmed simulation—that it is fundamentally mathematical.😲

We should start the journey with Pythagoras, travel through the ideas of the last man who truly knew everything—Leibniz—and then see where else the path leads...

Don't forget about Tegmark's MIT.

bluemason3 said:True, which is why they were mostly just talking nonsense, too. Their guesses—driven by poor epistemology—aren't any more accurate than anyone else's. They just happened to land somewhat near what we know today purely by luck, though they aren't even close to being truly correct.

Look, you can't really blame a philosopher when science is still playing catch-up to their intuition. I mean, what else could they realistically do? Build an electron microscope just to prove a molecular structure? The point is, if the idea is solid, it serves its purpose. If that spark of insight lights a fire under some scientist, then mission accomplished.

The Big Bang was just an idea once, too. Lemaître, Gamow, Alpher... they sketched out the model, and then Bohr, Hubble, and a whole crowd of others stepped up to provide the proof. Everyone chips in a little piece of the puzzle. In fields this complex, there’s no such thing as being 100% right from the jump.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Don't forget about Tegmark's MIT.

I hear you, but let's just take it one step at a time.
I’ve been spending quite a bit of time reading and discussing Tegmark’s book, mostly in private sessions with my old friend Sigmund. He’s always had this insatiable appetite for staying ahead of the curve, so he’s been eager to dive into these latest intellectual breakthroughs before they even hit the mainstream.

He asked me to handle the heavy lifting on this one, so I put my head down, did the translation, handled the writing, and finally delivered exactly what he was looking for.

Sigmund said:So, what’s the verdict from Tegmark and Parsi? Come on, give us a quick digest! Since you love to boast about introducing us to the latest intellectual trends—rather than just adding another hardcover to your bookshelf—it’s probably about time you actually put those words into action. And if you could do it with a little bit of class, that would be great.

To all you young seekers out there, if you head over to page 17 of this thread, I highly recommend diving into those brilliant, deep-dive posts by hiddenpuma75 regarding Tegmark (starting from entry #323). Just follow the lead of Minerva and the owl in hiddenpuma75's avatar—think of it as your little intellectual compass to guide the way.

I have to admit, I’ve lost a bit of that spark lately. It’s hard to stay enthusiastic when certain folks on here keep telling me my philosophical deep dives are nothing more than aimless rambling. 😲 Honestly, if only hiddenpuma75 would finally stop spinning their wheels, maybe we’d actually see some real progress in philosophy.

I have to admit, I’m feeling a little bit out of my depth here, but I wanted to weigh in on this. Looking at how everything is unfolding, it feels like we’re all just trying to make sense of a very complex puzzle. Sometimes it seems like we're chasing moving targets, doesn't it? I’ve been thinking about the implications of these recent shifts, and while there's plenty of debate, I can't help but wonder if we're overlooking the most obvious path forward. It’s easy to get caught up in the technicalities, but at the end of the day, we need clarity. I'd love to hear what the rest of you think—am I totally off base here, or is anyone else feeling this same sense of uncertainty?

Eric Newman75 said:Look, you can't really blame a philosopher when science is still playing catch-up to their intuition. I mean, what else could they realistically do? Build an electron microscope just to prove a molecular structure? The point is, if the idea is solid, it serves its purpose. If that spark of insight lights a fire under some scientist, then mission accomplished.

The Big Bang was just an idea once, too. Lemaître, Gamow, Alpher... they sketched out the model, and then Bohr, Hubble, and a whole crowd of others stepped up to provide the proof. Everyone chips in a little piece of the puzzle. In fields this complex, there’s no such thing as being 100% right from the jump.

Science isn't lagging, nor does it depend on philosophers. Visionaries will always churn out a mountain of different theories, and atomism popped up everywhere else, too (like ancient India). It's just pure speculation.

Their version of atomism is about as useful as believing in dragons—completely irrelevant.

Before the Big Bang was ever confirmed, it was just a theoretical way to explain certain astronomical observations. Ancient "atomism" was nothing more than speculative rambling without any actual foundation.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of projecting modern knowledge backward in time. That's just the same cognitive bias toward selective interpretation and confirmation bias that fuels conspiracy theories and other delusions.

hiddenpuma75 said:I have nothing but respect for philosophy, but I believe there is something "stronger," something far more universal, and something undeniably accurate and verifiable. It is the queen—if not the king—of everything. In essence, it is 😲 God 🙏

The absolute foundation of all things is mathematics 🙏

Or, to put it bluntly.

Numbers possess a precision that words simply can't match.

0100001111000111111

In other words.
Philosophy is, as Nietzsche suggested, merely a DESCRIPTION (a labeling) of the world rather than an explanation of it.

So, following the logic of Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth:

MATHEMATICS IS THE EXPLANATION😲

Nothing else holds the answers to everything.😲

I’m actually putting together a discussion on this topic. I want to explore the evolving idea that this entire existence is essentially a programmed simulation—that it is fundamentally mathematical.😲

We should start the journey with Pythagoras, travel through the ideas of the last man who truly knew everything—Leibniz—and then see where else the path leads...

And Leibniz? You think he was just copying those Greek guys he mentioned? Not even close. And let’s be real—he didn't "know everything," nor did he explain everything. Science back then was a hundred, maybe a thousand times less developed than what we have now. The modern person simply isn't built to know everything anymore; we can only specialize. Things have expanded way too much in terms of both breadth and depth. You’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics.

hollowpuma762 said:Yest.

Among other things.

Yest.

And then that leads somewhere further down the line.

Niye.

: )

I'm not sure what you're even asking here.

But this specific type of discourse is the whole point here.

That’s definitely a philosophical take.

Once you actually wrap your head around the rhetorical device being used and what it's really getting at.

I was just being pedantic, I guess, because you were answering my question about how far off we are from "that" specific goal
and why
without first clarifying that what I had actually mentioned wasn't the goal at all.
So, my question was really directed at the actual target (?)—one that feels miles away given that we're currently stuck living in such a dysfunctional, broken, and frankly insane era and civilization, if I recall you saying so correctly.

That distinction is actually a pretty crucial part of the whole argument here.

Nope.

: )

Eric Newman75 said:And Leibniz? You think he was just copying those Greek guys he mentioned? Not even close. And let’s be real—he didn't "know everything," nor did he explain everything. Science back then was a hundred, maybe a thousand times less developed than what we have now. The modern person simply isn't built to know everything anymore; we can only specialize. Things have expanded way too much in terms of both breadth and depth. You’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics.

But I wonder, is it actually possible for an AI to engage in true philosophy? 🤔

The Dark Star is proving they've got what it takes. 😁

Quincy:

Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.

Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.

To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲

Here are a few arguments to support that point:

The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:

"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest.
The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲

4.
To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call.
The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...

Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.

5.
Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal.
Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉

hiddenpuma75 said:Quincy:

Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.

Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.

To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲

Here are a few arguments to support that point:

The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:

"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest.
The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲

4.
To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call.
The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...

Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.

5.
Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal.
Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉

Aha. So, this "indivisible unit" that some people call a number, others see as an idea, and still others view as an atom—which he famously calls a monad—just magically popped into his head out of nowhere?

If he was familiar with the atomists and Plato, there's no question about it. And if you throw Pythagoras and Euclid into that mix? I'd bet my life on it.

6) Some scholars argue that Leibniz's greatest contribution—the true measure of his genius—lies in his grasp of the ontological significance of zero. 😲

Since the Greeks didn't even have a concept of zero, your suggestion that he was just copying from the Greeks is totally off base.

It’s worth noting that about 19 out of 20 people on these forums don't actually distinguish between the number zero and the philosophical concept of "nothingness," which probably deserves its own discussion thread.
But really, how can one dive into that without facing those deep philosophical objections? You know: being accused of opening too many threads, spamming, attacking people's credibility, splitting long essays into multiple parts, and so on... 🤔

7) After Leibniz, we entered the era of the "Specialist"—those experts who, quite humorously yet satirically, seem to know everything about one tiny niche while knowing absolutely nothing about anything else.

8)
Bertrand Russell praises him immensely, arguing that Leibniz laid the groundwork for modern German Idealism, which eventually culminated in Hegel. Russell suggests that it took the modern era to truly appreciate Leibniz's magnitude; previous generations simply couldn't wrap their heads around how far ahead of his time his ideas actually were.

9) Generally speaking, I believe a person's "strength" and "greatness" should be measured by how much they broke away from their contemporaries and how vital their ideas remain long after they've passed.

10) And finally, something a bit cliché, but still interesting and telling:

To me, it feels somewhat pedantic and futile to try and weigh one genius against another or compare thinkers from different eras.
However, if you play around with various IQ calculations using different methods and lists, you will consistently find the name Leibniz right there in the top ten.😉

Eric Newman75 said:Aha. So, this "indivisible unit" that some people call a number, others see as an idea, and still others view as an atom—which he famously calls a monad—just magically popped into his head out of nowhere?

If he was familiar with the atomists and Plato, there's no question about it. And if you throw Pythagoras and Euclid into that mix? I'd bet my life on it.

Look, let's not get bogged down in the weeds over the differences between atoms and monads in the middle of the night.

Besides, I'm not quite following your point here. What are you actually trying to get at?

Of course Leibniz studied Plato and Pythagoras; anyone with his intellect would have. But nobody else managed to distill all that existing knowledge and apply it so multidimensionally across mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.

That's why people call him one of the last true polymaths—because in this day and age, achieving that kind of breadth is practically impossible.

Your critique feels a bit misplaced. It’s a bit like saying Einstein's work isn't original or revolutionary just because Newton defined classical mechanics before him. 🙄

Or like claiming a modern poet isn't original simply because they use words that already exist in the English language.

I’ll clear this up, no problem. I’m talking about ontology here. That isn't really my main focus. If we’re going to sit around debating philosophers and philosophy, shouldn't we be looking at epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics too? There are massive holes in the logic. Take the whole "evil in the best of all possible worlds" debate, for instance. There is so much left hanging.

Look, being versatile is great and all, but his actual breakthroughs in math and physics—stuff that is truly original and changed everything—place him more in the camp of a scientist than a philosopher. When it comes to metaphysics, he’s essentially just picking up where the Greeks and Brun left off. That’s fine, don't get me wrong, but it would be pretty arrogant to claim he had figured out everything there is to know. That’s my issue. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:Quincy:

Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.

Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.

To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲

Here are a few arguments to support that point:

The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:

"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest.
The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲

4.
To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call.
The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...

Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.

5.
Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal.
Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉

Why "startling"? Well, if you're looking at sheer breadth of knowledge, I guess you could argue it. Still, The Stagirite feels more cohesive to me. No matter what you pick up—his Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics—it all traces back to those principles laid out in his Metaphysics. Every single work reflects the whole system. Purpose, motion, the golden mean, matter, form, entelechy (from his De Anima writings); it’s all interconnected. Every facet of human action is structured to fit perfectly into the framework. And it all follows a strict logic.

Sure, there’s some nonsense in there—mainly when it comes to scientific accuracy—but you can forgive him for that. Even so, he’s incredibly persuasive.

steelridge58 said:I was just being pedantic, I guess, because you were answering my question about how far off we are from "that" specific goal
and why
without first clarifying that what I had actually mentioned wasn't the goal at all.
So, my question was really directed at the actual target (?)—one that feels miles away given that we're currently stuck living in such a dysfunctional, broken, and frankly insane era and civilization, if I recall you saying so correctly.

That distinction is actually a pretty crucial part of the whole argument here.

Nope.

: )

Fine... so what's your question?

steelridge58 said:I was just being pedantic, I guess, because you were answering my question about how far off we are from "that" specific goal
and why
without first clarifying that what I had actually mentioned wasn't the goal at all.
So, my question was really directed at the actual target (?)—one that feels miles away given that we're currently stuck living in such a dysfunctional, broken, and frankly insane era and civilization, if I recall you saying so correctly.

That distinction is actually a pretty crucial part of the whole argument here.

Nope.

: )

Yeah.

Consciousness can only develop once the Thinker learns to face the bad stuff.
There are beasts and dragons out there to fight.

And you need certain approaches to handle that—approaches that aren't exactly "fun."

Anyone who finds that too much, anyone who just wants to cling to their diapers and happy little toys, is wasting their time with philosophy.
Even if they get that smug sense of achievement by quoting some philosophers, basically just hoarding information from outside sources without ever actually doing any individual work through their own inner self.

hollowpuma762 said:Fine... so what's your question?

Yeah.

Consciousness can only develop once the Thinker learns to face the bad stuff.
There are beasts and dragons out there to fight.

And you need certain approaches to handle that—approaches that aren't exactly "fun."

Anyone who finds that too much, anyone who just wants to cling to their diapers and happy little toys, is wasting their time with philosophy.
Even if they get that smug sense of achievement by quoting some philosophers, basically just hoarding information from outside sources without ever actually doing any individual work through their own inner self.

It’s actually already covered in that section you just quoted.

Yeah.

True consciousness can only really begin to take shape once the thinker learns how to actually think. I honestly feel like I spend way too much time overthinking things, but I really think we need to start facing the music on this one if we want to actually make any progress. Not doing too great, honestly.
There’s a whole bunch of beasts and dragons out there just waiting for a fight.

And that’s exactly why we need to embrace some approaches that aren't exactly fun or comforting to deal with.

Some people just find it all too heavy and would much rather stay tucked away in their comfort zones, playing with their little toys and wasting time on philosophy.
Even if he tries to make it look like some massive intellectual breakthrough by throwing around names of famous philosophers, it’s really just him curating information from outside sources without actually doing any of the heavy lifting or original thinking required to process it through his own mind.

You're overthinking this, hollowpuma762.

steelridge58 said:It’s actually already covered in that section you just quoted.

Yeah.

True consciousness can only really begin to take shape once the thinker learns how to actually think. I honestly feel like I spend way too much time overthinking things, but I really think we need to start facing the music on this one if we want to actually make any progress. Not doing too great, honestly.
There’s a whole bunch of beasts and dragons out there just waiting for a fight.

And that’s exactly why we need to embrace some approaches that aren't exactly fun or comforting to deal with.

Some people just find it all too heavy and would much rather stay tucked away in their comfort zones, playing with their little toys and wasting time on philosophy.
Even if he tries to make it look like some massive intellectual breakthrough by throwing around names of famous philosophers, it’s really just him curating information from outside sources without actually doing any of the heavy lifting or original thinking required to process it through his own mind.

You're overthinking this, hollowpuma762.

It’s buried in some vague, chaotic circus.

steelridge58 said:It’s actually already covered in that section you just quoted.

Yeah.

True consciousness can only really begin to take shape once the thinker learns how to actually think. I honestly feel like I spend way too much time overthinking things, but I really think we need to start facing the music on this one if we want to actually make any progress. Not doing too great, honestly.
There’s a whole bunch of beasts and dragons out there just waiting for a fight.

And that’s exactly why we need to embrace some approaches that aren't exactly fun or comforting to deal with.

Some people just find it all too heavy and would much rather stay tucked away in their comfort zones, playing with their little toys and wasting time on philosophy.
Even if he tries to make it look like some massive intellectual breakthrough by throwing around names of famous philosophers, it’s really just him curating information from outside sources without actually doing any of the heavy lifting or original thinking required to process it through his own mind.

You're overthinking this, hollowpuma762.

Fine. Next time I won't waste the brainpower trying to explain things to you.

Eric Newman75 said:Why "startling"? Well, if you're looking at sheer breadth of knowledge, I guess you could argue it. Still, The Stagirite feels more cohesive to me. No matter what you pick up—his Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics—it all traces back to those principles laid out in his Metaphysics. Every single work reflects the whole system. Purpose, motion, the golden mean, matter, form, entelechy (from his De Anima writings); it’s all interconnected. Every facet of human action is structured to fit perfectly into the framework. And it all follows a strict logic.

Sure, there’s some nonsense in there—mainly when it comes to scientific accuracy—but you can forgive him for that. Even so, he’s incredibly persuasive.

I’m a bit pressed for time right now, but given how fast this conversation is moving, I’ll keep my response brief and admittedly a little surface-level.

The reason it's surprising to claim that Leibniz is one of the two greatest polymath geniuses is precisely because he remains the most underrated and misunderstood figure in that entire Hall of Fame.

Once I started diving deeper into Leibniz's work, I began to notice just how strange the paths to "global intellectual fame" can be.

For instance, the big question is why Newton became "more famous" and carries more weight in history than Leibniz, even if Leibniz was actually the "greater and more versatile genius."
After looking into this quite closely, I think I’ve found the answer.

I could give you the distilled version in just three sentences, but that feels bizarre and pedagogically lazy—kind of like a parent trying to spoon-feed a perfectly healthy adult.
Instead, we really ought to study the history of ideas, Leibniz's life and works, and the evolution of science and philosophy ourselves to truly grasp this. We need to learn how to cook and eat on our own without having our hands held.

A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

hollowpuma762 said:It’s buried in some vague, chaotic circus.

Fine. Next time I won't waste the brainpower trying to explain things to you.

And how exactly can you be so sure about that?