On 23 Mar, 22:52, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
<snip>

You have not answered my question. What is your point? Where is this
going?
Steve

We have to start somewhere.
To think at all, we need our self.
But we don't even know what it is really.

*You* may not. If you don't know what it is (I know what *I* consider
my concept of "self") then you can make no meaningful statements about
it at all.

Some even say we don't have a permanent self.

But we need it to think at all.
So we begin with a faith in self.
Never mind what it is.

This is incoherent nonsense.

Then we need space and time as well.
We don't quite know what they are.
Still we need dimensions to talk about the world.
So we have faith in dimensionality of the world,
whatever that might be.

OK, I see what you're doing. You're getting confused with colloquial
word usage.

Colloquial human language is a poor descriptor mechanism. The thing
one refers to, and the language token one uses are very loosely
mapped: "Wow! Space, man! It's like...spacey! And time! Wow!
What *is* that? Like, how do we know that time is, you know, like,
*passing*? Where does it pass? How does it pass. Like...wow!"

Scientific descriptions are far crisper, but still inexact. On a
macro level, we *do* know what space is, in terms of Euclidian
geometry. That it now seems that Euclidean geometry is not the whole
story is not an issue, it simply means we are journeying into areas on
investigaton we have not entered before. Time is a description of
relative entropy state changes.

That we have gaps in our knowledge at present does not mean we plug
them up with a spook. Spooks have a nasty habit of turning out to be
insubstantial.

Who knows, we might be all blind to something.

Vague nonsense.

Who told you that the world is
only composed of something we can understand?

No-one "told" me. I have my observations and inferences, and the
objective, documented and corroborated experiences of others. It
seems highly likely to me that the universe can be reduced to
component parts, and that we will be able to understand the
interactions of those parts - but I cannot say anything more than "it
is likely", because I don't have all the information. This does not
mean that I have "faith" that this is so, I simply hold it to be true
until an explanation which seems to fit the evidence more closely
comes along. I will not cling to my interpretation if such a new
explanation emerges. I don't fear the coming of that explanation: I
welcome it.

This is in strict contrast to religious people, who claim that that
they *do* have all the facts about the universe, because it's all in
their religious texts. They are upset and confused by evidence to the
contrary, I think because it makes them doubt their surety. By
definition, they MUST reject new knowledge. This is one of the many
reasons why religion is dangerous to humanity.

What makes you think the world has to be logical?

Logic is a framework we impose on the world which works because it is
practical. It is not a Universal absolute - capitalisation
intentional. Since the validity of logic is contaned within itself
(i.e. logic only exists as a concept because it works, by necessity),
the world cannot but be logical.

Steve

On Mar 23, 10:52 pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:

To think at all, we need our self.

[aka "I think, therefor I am"]

So we begin with a faith in self.

I see the problem.
You're failing to think, and so you're unsure that you exist.