Philosophy of Everything

Philosophy of Life Is there a meaning of life? What is the meaning of life? A secular concept of Hell Devil's offer - about the meaning of life Life is very compressible The seed and the terrain Philosophy of Morality Morality derived from space colonization On "morality derived from space colonization" On morality applied to animals Evil as striving for a local maximum Morality and killing Punishment is not really about free will On "Metaphysics of Quality" of Robert M. Pirsig Philosophy of Religion The God concept A secular God Is Your God so small? Philosophy of Knowledge On Intelligent life forms Knowledge is all about prediction How can we all be right even when we believe incompatible things We only have models, not knowledge On Knowledge and beliefs About consciousness Philosophy of Universe We believe in a compressible Universe Genetic code (DNA) is not enough DNA and the fabric of the Universe Reflections on the entropy of Life Lenses of the Universe ...

Philosophy of Life Is there a meaning of life? The meaning of human life - for me, now Hell Devil's offer Life is very compressible The seed and the terrain

All that is good In a first approximation, God is a catch-all concept about everything that is unexplained about the world and human life. Such God concept is consistent with most religious beliefs that I know. Most modern religions that contain some kind of "Evil" concept will associate God mainly with things that are good for humans. Here we will use this conceptual dichotomy between God and Evil. The mystery A God that contains all the unexplained features that are favorable to humans is inherently mysterious, even by the above definition. Why life exists rather than not? How that human life exists?

We consider many propositions about the world as either true or not true.  However, in my view, human knowledge is not a collection of true and false propositions. What we consider as evidently true are only propositions about the world that we believe to have a very small probability to be false. The above is still compatible with an objective Reality, however most of our knowledge about Reality is highly mediated, so that we can rarely be fully certain about something. Mount Everest I "know" that the highest mountain in the world is Everest (from the sea level). However, I never seen that mountain. Even if I could visit and measure mount Everest, it is not realistic for me to check all the other mountains in the world to verify that there is no higher mountain somewhere. Think Popper. I only believe that Everest is the highest mountain in the world because a lot of sources tells me this (externalism). It is unlikely that any of my sources verified personally that there is n...

Russel's paradox is defining "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves". You can show that such construct leads to a contradiction. Read the wiki link for details. I started this article as answer to this article . There is another interesting paradox discussed by Bertrand Russell: "The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters", actually better known as Berry's paradox  You can also prove that such number creates a contradiction, because you just defined it under sixty letters. For me, the above paradox shows that it is not enough to create a condition for something to exist with that condition - or a set of such elements. Such paradoxes argue that such objects defined by a predicate cannot exist sometimes.

Let's start by observing that most civilizations and individuals are developing a concept of God or Gods, even without outside preaching. Polytheistic religions Ancient Greeks and Romans had many Gods. Each God was powerful over a certain aspect of life. For example, Poseidon/Neptune governed the sea, storms, earthquakes. Each God embodied a certain aspect of live where human had little understanding about causation. Aphrodite/Venus governed the love, where humans still struggle to understand the causation.

The killing button Suppose I put you in an empty room with only one button. I don't tell you anything. You are free to leave the room without doing anything. Out of curiosity, you push that button. Actually, you pressing that button results in the killing of 100 people. However, you didn't know what will happen when you pushed that button. You were free to not push that button. Still, you pressed it. No people would have died if you wouldn't push the button. Most people and juridic systems would not consider you accountable for the tragic consequences of your action. The moral and legal responsible would be me for putting you in that situation. Would you agree?