c: By definition, there can be no cause without an effect.
L: So, you just pulled this out of your arse in order to prove what? How can you know this without knowing what the universe and thus time, space and causality (cause and effect) are?
c: I don’t know it. It is how I define cause and effect, as mutually dependent occurrences; it’s like two ends of a stick, you can’t have just one end.
clyde, that is really confusing for a couple of reasons. (1) Isn’t the last part of that sentence (bolded) a statement of absolute knowledge or are you in the habit of making apparently certain statements (and movements) without anticipating a desired effect, and (2) Isn’t knowing that the entire basis of your “do no harm†movement?
c: By definition, there can be no cause without an effect.
L: So, you just pulled this out of your arse in order to prove what? How can you know this without knowing what the universe and thus time, space and causality (cause and effect) are?
c: I don’t know it. It is how I define cause and effect, as mutually dependent occurrences; it’s like two ends of a stick, you can’t have just one end.
clyde, that is really confusing for a couple of reasons. (1) Isn’t the last part of that sentence (bolded) a statement of absolute knowledge or are you in the habit of making apparently certain statements (and movements) without anticipating a desired effect, and (2) Isn’t knowing that the entire basis of your “do no harm†movement?
.
Leyla;
(1) Whether “a stick has two ends†is “absolute knowledge†or not is not a concern of mine. That a stick has two ends is how reality appears to function and I may use that as a provisional truth until a new understanding arises.
And I sometimes make “certain statements†based on my direct experience and current understanding. Readers, like you, will apply their own judgment.
(2) Knowing (as in having knowledge or “absolute knowledgeâ€) is not the entire basis of the “do no harm†movement. One does not need to know in some absolute sense, but only in a practical sense. In addition, one needs to have experienced (felt) suffering.
clyde, what reason do you have for making the two-endedness attribute of a stick provisional (aside from the idea that it may turn out to be a snake due to some other cause/s, that is)?
(2) Knowing (as in having knowledge or “absolute knowledgeâ€) is not the entire basis of the “do no harm†movement. One does not need to know in some absolute sense, but only in a practical sense. In addition, one needs to have experienced (felt) suffering.
OK. So, pragmatically speaking, you are taking statistics?
There were a couple of reasons. As I stated, I may use a provisional truth, so I am not at a disadvantage because I have not declared “two-endedness†“absolute knowledgeâ€. And perhaps someone will one day demonstrate “one-endednessâ€. Is that likely? No, but, as an example, some scientists have speculated on a magnetic monopole.
Well, clyde, listen carefully because I am here to reveal a great truth to you and that truth is that a stick is a stick and a monopole is a monopole. A stick will always be a stick, even if what you once saw as a snake you now see as a stick, a stick is a stick because there could be no stick-imagined-as-a-snake without a stick being a stick and a snake being a snake!
