fingolfin

Isn't that what a principle is though; a guideline or general rule you deem worthy of acquiescence to? I think it just comes down to personal decisions based on the context of the moment. Just because a principle might resolve to opinion, that doesn't make it less of a principle; it's just what it is: a guiding rule, no? One might always follow it or only sometimes, or find "contradictions" or not in the rule when applied in reality, but that's why I consider all principles to be loose guidelines based on personal values. What else could they be? I generally prefer/value peaceful society and interactions, so my "principle" is that of peaceful relations with people.

Same problem though. Things cannot "pop into" existence upon detection (magic). If I discover a rock, it sure better exist before I trip over it. It's irrelevant if later on, we say "Oh, but the rock in retrospect was detectable! Therefore detectability is the new criterion.". Many people claim to have observed god's will, and detected zero-dimensional (shapeless) particles. What do these "things" look like (hypothetically)? No idea! But they're proven and true all the same, according to the believers. We cannot understand, so we have to accept in good faith. I say no! Show me the money!

It seems to make sense intuitively that we experimented heavily with food sources throughout our history, and as adaptable omnivores simply took whatever we could get and ate as efficiently as possible within a given ecology. So, our diet has always been shifting, depending on the given culture in question, our location and availability of food sources to a given populace. Basically, we just eat differently now to before, that's all. Some things are "better" or "worse" for some, other things are "better" or "worse" for others, and vice versa. There's no perfect universal rule beyond the basic minimum requirements for sustenance. Eskimo diets are largely meat based, and some remaining indigenous tribes I've seen seem largely vegetarian but will eat meat (and honey!) where they can get it more as a delicacy. I suspect that'smore to do with availability of large game. Anyways, I still think meat was more popular because it's just so efficient, pre-agriculture. You kill a beast, cook it, and eat. It has protein and works fast. You can carry big chunks of it around. Agriculture (later, cereal crops) had a massive effect sure, but then again so did mass dairy farming as well. I agree that quality and freshness are a large part of it as well. Then again, what we potentially eat in the way of polluted food (e.g. mercury pollution) we make up for in general health and well-being, i.e. prolonged and improved lives through medicine, more choice and availability in food in general. Great thread!

Just ask the theists to draw a picture of god for you. They'll run away every time! (And if not – bonus points – ask them also to kindly illustrate for you the creation moment from there on out. That should be fun!).

But then aren't you changing the original context from "ought to go to LA" to "ought to go to LA quickly"? I mean someone might even suggest going east first, to catch a plane, if you want to be quick. And conversely, if we remove quickly, then we might fly in the opposite direction, just for kicks or something. Furthermore, if all we're saying is "if you want to go west, then [you should] go west" how do we go from opinion/suggestion to 'universally preferable'? Even 'ability to prefer (universally)' has issues, since we can never run a test on a species like that. So at best we might conclude: people tend to go places quickly if they want to go there. But they might also tend not to. Depending on the context. Why not keep ought as an opinion, and simply justify one's opinion? E.g. "we should go to the beach". "Why?". "It'd be fun, plus it's sunny". There's nothing 'wrong' with these statements objectively. 'Wrong' here would simply mean, "I disagree, we should go [to the woods], and here's why ... bla bla".

And just to add, the tactical word Universe objectively resolves to a concept. A concept that binds (1) matter (sum total of all obejcts) and (2) space. So it's relational. Concept: that without shape; aka a relation b/t objects. So, "a" universe cannot be aware, and does not do any measuring. We cannot ever say "the" universe is aware, any more than we can say "it" had a beginning. In fact, it's not really a very scientific word outside of studying the large-scale structure of matter itself, i.e. "as a whole".

I may have misunderstood, but I thought you were taking on the definition of existence requiring detectability and critiquing it, and I thought you strawmanned it when you said detectability requires an observer. What I'm trying to say is that anything that has shape and location can be observed and that means the object exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it must not have shape and location (or we can't infer its shape and location in cases of energy). Existence still requires detectibility as a criterion. Also a self-aware universe would transcend the observer-observed dichotomy anyways. Anything that can be observed is also an observer. Self-awareness means that someting can detect itself. Perhaps the universe can detect itself too. No, this would be a contradiction. The observing of it doesn't "mean" it exists. Otherwise we're saying that the Earth did not exist until we came along and observed it. We can critically reason (i.e. be obejctive) about this, and conclude that before we observed/measured/detected it, the Earth existed. Why? Because it has architecture (shape) and location wrt other objects. Likewise, just because we cannt detect it, that doesn't mean it has no shape or location. This is why science requires a rational hypothesis (i.e. hypothesized object or physical mechanism). For example, nobody can observe an atom directly – let alone a tiny photon or neutron! – and in fact all our instrumentation at best reconstructs a mess of various data (just look at the LHC images for example!). We must hypothesize an atom. We give it a shape so we're all on the same page. Which of the 7+ versions of the atom shall we draw for our audience? The debunked Rutherford/Bohr version aka the planetary model?! Choices choices! This is why physics demands a physical object: that with shape. It's a strictly conceptual issue. We're not going out hunting for an atom under a rock here. We're not trying to "prove" or "disprove" a black hole, leprechaun or the UFO (poltiics, law). We're trying to conceptualise (ultimately: visualize) what "it" IS, literally speaking (science). Not in poetry or metaphor or math either. All physical objects can and must be illustrated in order to have a rational discourse. [Ask the guy who fixes your car next time if he has a zero-dimensional carburetor. Or, if he can swap out the fuel (object) in your car for some (ideally, dark) "energy" or just get it started using some magical "forces"!] Point being: science requires a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires all exhibits (aka "evidence") be presented for scrutiny before the theory begins. We may never SEE or DETECT the Yeti, but as long as we can hypothesize our Kodiak Bear on the big screen, the audience can grasp the creature that left the big-foot-prints.

You are the only one being condescending here. And the one not providing any explanation, while invoking magic (energies).

E=Mc^(2) proves this wrong. Mass and energy are equicalent when multiplied by a fixed constant. Claiming that energy does not exist would be making a claim that matter does not exist and debunk all of reality. I'm sorry, what is this gibberish? [8-|] You have to make an argument, not just assert opinions. As already discussed, 'energy' (an abstract concept) does not exist pursuant to an objective definition of 'exist'. Energy has no shape, nor location. Energy is a vague 'explain it all' (i.e. explain nothing) word invoked to escape the argument at hand. If you don't like the definition of exist provided kindly by the OP, then it is up to YOU to define it without contradiciton or ambiguity for all to see. You don't get to just parrot opinion. Your equation not only proves nothing (math is tautologous; 'proof' is empirical in context) but it only (at best!) describes dymanic events. No math can explain a single event of nature. For that we need physics, and in physics it is axiomatic that we provide a physical object (object: that with shape) before we begin our thesis. Energy is what things/objects DO (verb), not what they ARE (noun). You can't have nothing (no-object) perform an action. The object is a priori. All objects in nature can and should be illustrated – so that your audience knows what you're talking about. This is how we begin a rational discussion. Definitions of key terms, and our objects shown upfront. No cheating or magic tricks allowed! So, please explain unambiguously, frame by frame, and without opinion, contradiction or ambiguity, how a mathematical equation, which doesn't exist, can account for the presence of matter. Please show us all how no-thing (space, concepts) can produce some-thing (an object). No angels or invisible leprechauns!

Amazing video!

Philosophy: the scientific study of concepts. Under my definition spoken word or written word matters not one bit, as long as a person is "on record" at some point with their arguments or theory. Written word is clearly advantageous because it gives one time to pause and think before making a point. In verbal debates a lot of potential manipulation, pressure, psychology and room for subjective error and backtracking can be introduced. Written debates (and formal conversations) aren't always perfect obviously, but IMO far superior across the board. Having things written down for analysis and reference, and to make sure one doesn't change definitions or key points mid-way, makes for more objective discussion.

But the issue is precisely a lack of clear definitions and unambiguous language. E.g.:

I think it's related to the idea that you are only involved in a "theft" or act of copying in so far as you have also made/obtained a copy, but you did not perform the original copying nor the alleged theft (e.g. theft of DVD object; copying DVD's IP – concept). That you knew of a potential or alleged crime (as defined by state law), does that make you a conspirator? If so, how much so? It comes down, I would say, to a personal decision, morally neutral or depending on your own conception of morality/justice, about whether to watch goods that may or may not have been obtained "suspiciously" to begin with. There's no perfect absolute rule here so I think it's more emotional. Was the IP a "crime" in the first place? And so on, it's incredibly complex. Also, and this is an open query really, wouldn't it only be technically fraud if a copy was being passed off as an original (i.e. pretending one is the author/originator of an idea/object, or passing one's self off as that author)? And if so wouldn't that fraud be plagiarism specifically?

I still think it's the issue of copy/theft? Sorry to be annoying! Because if someone steals an object from the back of a truck, then I buy it, I now possess that stolen good. But if someone steals a painting from the same truck, then I copy it once I've seen it, I do not possess that original painting (object).

This is exactly the same "essence" debate that's been going on for eons: aka mereology. Holons or not, it's not a new idea. Mereology isn't scientific. But don't get me wrong, it is an interesting and important ontological discussion (part of the philosophy of science). It boils down to one's key terms – as always!. An object is not what it is "comprised of" (fallacy of begging the question, regress, etc). An object is conceptually static and bounded (finite, bordered by space). That a table might be touching the floor, or a tiny atom connected to another particle, is irrelevant to that particular table or atom in question. Both the table and floor, by virtue of being objects, are spatially separated entities regardless of whether another connecting medium lies between them. It's not an issue of "proof" or observation. For the purposes of science and the immediate context, the object udner scrutiny (and that which is implied as soon as we say "the" table or "the" atom) is concetpually static and discrete. All objects have structure (form; shape; architecture). It is their only objective, instrinsic property. If a forest has shape, it's an object for THAT theory. If not, it is a concept. (It's the same with motion; that an object moves (or changes shape) is irrelevant to the question of the object having static shape to begin with. Clearly, if some "thingy" moves at all, hopefully what's moving has shape!) What specific, particular shape an object has is a separate issue (i.e. physics). But it's conceptually static. At any point we should be able to "freeze frame" our movie and illustrate or point to the object in question.