Philosophy 1, on Dec. 31, 2013

Today I wanted to find out something about philosophy.  I didn't know what I wanted to find out, but I felt there was something in it that I wanted.

I started at wikipedia.org.  I entered "philosophy" and got the following information near the beginning of the article, which I list together with a few comments from myself:

1.  Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems.

2.  Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

3.  In more casual speech ... 'philosophy' can refer to 'the most basic beliefs, concept, and attitudes of an individual or group'.

4.  Within philosophy is the sub-topic "epistemology".  Epistemology is about knowledge.  [ From what I heard elsewhere, epistemology is about how we can know things. ]

5.  I encounter two common concepts, within the realm of "how we can know things".  They are:
    a.  Observational evidence
    and
    b.  Reasoning.

6.  ( The notion of observational evidence is connected with the philosophical term "empiricism" and with the logic term "induction".  The notion of reasoning is connected with the philosophical term "rationalism" and with the logic term "deduction". )

7.  Observation and reasoning are widely respected concepts.  I think I first heard about them in late grade school.  I would add a third way, which is less generally respected:  intuition.  I mean intuition in a broad sense, to mean almost anything which isn't strictly reason nor observation.

8.  Intuition could be evaluated according to its consistency and according to how it feels emotionally -- or simply whether one likes a particular intuition or not.

9.  So, for me, there are at least 3 ways to know things:  observation, reasoning, and intuition.

Reality is overrated

(This began as a reply post in a google group (like a usenet group).)

There's no one absolute dividing line between "real" and "imaginary".  Anything you imagine is real and significant if you care about it.  

(Example:  If you have a vivid dream in which you feel emotion, that is a real experience, whether you remember it later or not.  Some people not only remember their dreams, but can also be aware that they are dreaming, while they are dreaming.  And some people can re-enter their dreams.  It's plausible to suppose that the reality within a dream is significant, as reality, and just as significant as what's real when you're "awake".  The more you care about a thing, the more _significant_ it is, to you and to anyone else who cares about it, whether anyone wants to call it "real" or not.  And that significance may be more important or relevant than whether it matches anyone else's definition of what's real or not.)

Yes we have a convention of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension but you can also add dimensions such as color or heat, or all the dimensions of a suit of clothes ("measurements" of the human body -- relevant when buying a suit).  I think the convention of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension is actually arbitrary but we cannot see through that illusion.  

Rather than count dimensions and define physical reality for all, it's usually better to adopt systems that are _useful_, while realizing that there may be _other_ systems that are useful in other ways!  

For example a spherical geometry is useful in navigating on a planet, and in such a system, it may make more sense for "parallel" lines to meet in the distance rather than be forever equidistant for each other.  There's a certain arbitrariness to these systems and utility is usually a good criterion for choosing a system for some purpose.

For the most part, I think it's just fine to accept the 3 plus 1 dimensional physical reality as a useful convention, while realizing that it could ultimately be less than the whole of reality.  

As for imaginary numbers, yes the reality of those is kind of confusing but we can accept it as a convention and go with the flow.  If you make up any set of numbers and get enough people to agree on it, you can use that system and call it real.  Nobody is the final arbiter of what's real and what's not.

-jrl

Is There Hope (without religion)?

     I want something like a religion, but, I think, probably without the religion part.  Some of the religious people have a big significance and a wonderful thing in their lives.  I remember that parable of the seeds, just to take one example.  The Christian sowing is a wonderful thing, if it's just love they're sowing.  (If, on the other hand, they're sowing Spanish Inquisitions, then it's not wonderful in the same way.)

     What big significances or wonderful things could an unreligious person have, I wonder.  Right now I wonder:  what would one call it, if not a "religion".  How about a "philosophy"?  I am tired of that big word.  It got worn out in my mind and it needs a chance to rest and rejuvenate.  How about, say, … "belief system"?  No, that is still too highfalutin, for now.  Today I'll just say "thoughts", as in "these are my thoughts" or "I am thinking this way".

     Today I heard a great speaker on the radio.  Sorry, I didn't get his name.  He was on KPFA FM 94.1 on the Flashpoints radio show between about 5:40 and 5:58pm today (California time) Mar. 13, 2013.  He said that the anti-nuclear folks (of whom he is one, and presently so am I, particularly after listening to him) should give up sarcasm.  He suggested that we tell people about "nuclear trash", because the more usual phrase "spent fuel" (hope I got that right) doesn't mean anything to the vast majority of people.  Also he said that there's never been a cost-effective nuclear power plant.  So, in the sense of saving the physical world, my message of the day is:  nuclear trash is a horrible legacy we are leaving to our descendants, and so is the current climate change due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels; and (as the speaker said) the relatively easy conversion to renewable sources of energy solves (not totally, but generally) both problems.  So if you have at least one ear (or eye) to take in the thought, and some thought cells, that's my contribution today to saving the physical world:  I am raising awareness -- usually a good step toward a better future.

     Meanwhile, as I was saying yesterday (in The Parable of the Seed entry in the blog), the Christian sharing is of a higher order than centuries, and now furthermore it is even a higher order than the survival of the planet and the human race.  It is a different kind of spiritual path.  I want something like that, too; and in my faith, one can follow the highest spiritual path or paths, without harming the lower-order paths such as saving the world.

     So, for all such ends, high and highest, I construct my "thoughts" which are somewhat like a religion but without the religion part.

     There are questions about "what is" and questions about "what is not".  I guess the best of these questions really are philosophical.  I have another kind of question though (which is also philosophical), which is neither about "what is" nor about "what is not".  My question, to start off with, is:  how can one begin to think about important things such as a spiritual path or about deciding or discovering whatever is The Most Important Thing or Things?

     So I invoke the thought, which is the same thought I had when I was 22 or 23 in the little house in the alley in Wichita -- the thought that a good way to begin is whatever is the simplest way to begin.

     The simplest way to begin (so I think now and thought then) is to imagine a Void in which nothing ever was, nothing is, and nothing ever will be, for all space, time, and dimensionality.

     Having thunk that up, I proceed to ponder some quality.  I borrow from the church and think of the quality continuum "good versus evil".  I don't know why I thought of that, but I did, when I was 22 or 23.  Maybe we were raised, unwittingly, to think of it as an Important matter.  Or you could instead think of any other quality that you care about.  I imagine how such a quality might relate to the Void.  Is the Void more good than evil, or more evil than good?  Could the void be neutral?  I guess so.

     But then I have a faith, and my faith tells me that the Void is not evil.  Why?  I cannot prove why.  I imagine it like this:  supposing there were a God that existed above and beyond the Void, and had control over it.  This Void is the most empty thing imaginable.  This Void is innocent of all things.  How would a supreme God regard such a Void, or how would a supreme God shape such a void?  My faith says that God would not make it evil and would not regard it as evil.

     So, I conclude that line of thinking, as follows:  The Void is either neutral or good, but not evil.

     There is another, similar line of thinking that I also pursue:  it is the same as above, but without invoking God.  Instead of God, I just think of The Way Things Are, or I just think of the All, or I just think of the Universe.  As with God, so with the Universe.  My faith tells me that the All is not bad.  That means, the Way Things Are, taken as a whole, has a net value that is either neutral or good, but not evil.

     Some of you could be thinking, "What good is that?", or, "So what?"  Hold on just a little bit longer.  The above "Void is not bad" concept (or more particularly, the "the All is not bad" concept), paired with the option of dying (something we all encounter within a hundred years or so) -- and I mean _really_ dying, not just physically dying -- means that none of us has to face an eternity of evil.

     The idea, or belief, or fact if you accept it as fact, that none of us has to face an eternity of evil is quite significant and useful, in my opinion.  

     I hope that does not come across as too sarcastic.

     I believe that we _do_ have the option of _really_ dying.  That's part of my faith too.  Similarly I believe that a supreme God would not condemn a person to an eternal horror for committing a finite sin.  (I say that, because I am remembering a part of my Protestant heritage -- the fire-and-brimstone, or eternal punishment by burning in Hell, concept.  I disbelieve that teaching of a branch of the Christian religion.)

     Given all that, I like to think that I'll live forever and always have some joy ahead of me, such that the life is good.  This frail husk I'm in now, body or mind, is in rather poor shape to live forever, but my emotional self feels that it doesn't want to die, and wants to go on and on to better and better things. So there could be a soul life to fulfill that longing.  My faith says:  if you _really_ need a thing, then there's a way you can get it.  So, either I'll live, or it will turn out that real death isn't so bad after all.  I suppose real death is either neutral or good (which is only logical, if it is given that the Void is either neutral or good).

The space-time continuum (and your Conscience)

This is how I imagine reality and our lives within it:


I.  The universe has a couple of dimensions (space and time) and probably more.  Sometimes I suppose there's a third dimension which is emotion.  Space and emotion, at least, could be divided up into sub-dimensions.  People usually describe space in 3 sub-dimensions.


II.  I imagine there's a universal clock that progresses along regularly for all eternity.  (There probably isn't any such absolute time, but I imagine that there is, anyway.  Let's keep things fairly simple.)


III.  There's a "normal" direction of time, which is the direction toward the future.


IV.  In space-time (disregarding the emotion dimension for now, so as to be simple), we progress along.  At one instant of time, we occupy one place in space.  At another instant of time, we occupy another place in space.


V.  Here's a crude analogy:  It is like space-time were filled with a waxy substance, and as we progress along through it, we leave marks in it, like gophers burrowing through the dirt.  But in space-time, every thing we do, which is every mark we make in the waxy substance, is recorded there exactly for eternity, unchanging.


VI.  There is something (such as God) which can look at all of space-time.  This entity or these entities can examine everything that ever happened.  It may be that (just saying, for example) sometime after we die, our spirits eventually learn how to get into little enclosed boats which can move all over the space-time continuum, and we can look at everything that ever happened.


VII.  If you do something, even if nobody is around to see it, _and_ even if you forget all about it, that act and that event are still recorded for all eternity in the space-time continuum.  This is how I think of reality.  When I do something, I feel guilty or good or however I feel, based on what I did (or failed to do), even if nobody else knows about it.  It exists forever in the space-time continuum, although we may lose interest in it.


VIII.  There's no deletion.  There may be forgiveness, or forgetting, or additional happenings added as time progresses along, but no deletion of what has happened at any time in the past. So what's been done, and whatever has happened, does exist in the space-time continuum.