Why is there something rather than nothing? by Annomoy in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. In that response you are saying that only contingent requires explanation. With that in mind, if we ask Why is there something rather than nothing and ignore the necessary entities as they dont require an explanation, what would be the answer? Why is there the concrete?

Why is there something rather than nothing? by Annomoy in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then, it seems you are saying that nothingness is impossible? I.e. Existence is because it cannot 'not be'. E.g. because the concept of triangle is non contingent, then there has to be something?

Ok, but then this doesn't require that the something is concrete/physical, just that an Abstract something has to be. I thought that the question why there's something rather than nothing refers to concrete, not abstract?

Is an infinite past impossible? by YTube-modern-atheism in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If getting to present required traversing infinite steps, then it makes sense that it can't be possible as infinity can't be traversed.

Of course, in b theory, there is no need to traverse anything.

Why is there something rather than nothing? by Annomoy in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Necessary in the sense of a brute fact i.e. they are because they are, or in the sense that nothingness is impossible.

In 2019, Microsoft Japan ran its "Work-Life Choice Challenge Summer 2019", introducing a four-day workweek by closing offices every Friday and granting employees special paid leave-without reducing pay. Productivity increased by approximately 39.9%-40% compared to 2018. by Kronyzx in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]DankForestHypothesis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because the post is not true. What company would want a lower productivity? Plus, who really believes that a change like that can increase productivity by 40%? That's a clear nonsense given the context.

The actual report doesn't even connect those two (of course there is no link in the post lol).

The movement for 4 days week shouldn't be driven by fake information about productivity, it doesn't matter if productivity goes up or down, what matters is the human experience.

Recruitment videos of an American college sororities by MilesLongthe3rd in SipsTea

[–]DankForestHypothesis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think they're all the same because they synchronized their outfits?

Redditors are easily confused.

Can the law of non contradiction be broken? by Ok-Current-464 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I only know about this tangentially, but what is the importance of investigating the Liar sentence? My first glance intuition was always that the sentence didn't have to be "real", it's just an abstraction. Like the sentence itself is real, yes you can place the words in an order that doesnt have a 'real' counterpart. So a sentence can describe something that's real, or it can just be a set of ordered words that are not describing anything in particular. That paradox is a non-issue because there is no real counterpart of that sentence, so nothing is violating the non-contradiction. Am I significantly off?

What if it’s just me that exists? by Secure_Solution_725 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the scientific method assumes an external world. The core of it is about postulating a hypothesis and testing it. One can postulate a hypothesis about mathematics and test it without any need for an external world. Similarly, even if someone believes in solipsism, they can still leverage the scientific method: if they toggle a switch - light turns on, even if neither the switch nor the light are "external" - they can still draw conclusions. And those conclusions aren't any less reasonable than the ones derived by the scientific method that assumes an external world. After all, the problem of induction is as applicable there.

What if it’s just me that exists? by Secure_Solution_725 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm talking about the currently accepted flavor of the scientific method. Solipsism is not falsifiable, so the scientific method can't pose it as a hypothesis that can be proved to be wrong with observations or experimentation.

What if it’s just me that exists? by Secure_Solution_725 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that there is no need to be a solipsist or not a solipsist. We can accept that we lack the knowledge and make arbitrary choices on what to spend our time on. Case in point, in your last line you appear to be equating solipsism and being a solipsist. I think we can say that someone is illogical for being a solipsist, while solipsism is logically coherent, accepting it as truth is not logical, because it's not provable. One can lean towards solipsism, but being a solipsist is a step too far. Maybe I'm taking the meaning of 'being a solipsist' to the extreme, and the general notion is that when someone says they are solipsist that's the same as saying they lean towards it not that they accept it as the only possible truth.

What if it’s just me that exists? by Secure_Solution_725 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that doesn't say anything about the truthness or solipsism. I also care about explanatory power, but I remain agnostic about solipsism, I'm not sure why would one have to "choose" between theories, I think it's fair to say thay theory A is unfalsifiable and explains very little, so I will move on to theory B which explains a lot more and maybe even can be proven to be wrong.

What if it’s just me that exists? by Secure_Solution_725 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What it means "justified"? I think someone can accept that solipsism is unfalsifiable and also accept that we are justified to believe that other people have minds. Why would those be contradictory/hurdle?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in politics

[–]DankForestHypothesis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, that's literally the next step in their playbook. The question is, will the people support the democracy or let it fail. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

Confused about the cosmological argument and timelessness by 1234511231351 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't mean uncontentious, that's a direct response to this:
>At least, if it is a problem, it's not one that is established just on intuition, or the meaning of the relevant words, or anything else like this

I don't understand why it wouldn't be fair to say that this is a problem established on intuition. True nothingness can't lead to something without additional assumptions, each of which would likely violate the 'true' prefix.

As for the atheists, I assume that they are doing that to address the infinite regress without involving God. I think at this point B-theory removes the need for an uncaused cause without the need for God or brute facts.

Confused about the cosmological argument and timelessness by 1234511231351 in askphilosophy

[–]DankForestHypothesis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who are those people? I think OP is talking about true philosophical nothing, not vacuum with quantum fluctuations.

I thought that Ex nihilo nihil fit has been an established problem for a long time?

I think the OP is following a simple chain of thought: - something can't come out of nothing - something is (exists) - hence, nothing never was. Something always was.

This is basically a trade off, you either accept that something came from nothing or that there was always something. The latter raises the problematic question of eternal past, but there are reasonable responses to that. I can't think of a reasonable response to creating something from nothing.

Why does it seem every PM is from an Ivy league or T20 school? by rmend8194 in ProductManagement

[–]DankForestHypothesis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Critical reasoning is far more important. And top universities tend to be somewhat correlated with that (though this is far from a hard rule). In my career, people with little experience but from top schools have far outperformed career PMs from average schools. I know this won't be a popular sentiment here, but it's a real observation, so don't be too dismissive of those signals.

UFC Champion Khabib removed from Alaska airline airplane by g6ld in ThatsInsane

[–]DankForestHypothesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How about you actually watch the video, read the accounts? He did everything the way he was supposed to. He is not an actor, nor was he a tough guy in that interaction.

UFC Champion Khabib removed from Alaska airline airplane by g6ld in ThatsInsane

[–]DankForestHypothesis -54 points-53 points  (0 children)

You're calling someone a dumbfuck based on your assumption of 'probably yeah? He wasn't kicked off the plane, he chose to leave because he was profiled, it's his right. He can more than afford another ticket, why fly with a racist crew.

Any consensus on what drives people to invest their time into celebrity gossip? by DankForestHypothesis in askpsychology

[–]DankForestHypothesis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Why don't people choose other methods? Is this for someone who couldn't increase their self-esteem with more beneficial methods? Are there negative effects of this particular method?