• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bertrand Russell's thoughts on what philosophy should entail

RAMOSS said:
Then, those are not your words.. despite you saying they are.
Click to expand...

These damn sure are:

The Fabian's desire for the creation of a one-world government is in direct contradiction to the Holy Bible where it is considered a sign of the end-times and the coming of the anti-Christ.

If you don't accept the word of the Bible, you're not going to accept these links. Calling them all 'crazy' shows little faith on your part.
 
WCH said:
These damn sure are:

The Fabian's desire for the creation of a one-world government is in direct contradiction to the Holy Bible where it is considered a sign of the end-times and the coming of the anti-Christ.

If you don't accept the word of the Bible, you're not going to accept these links. Calling them all 'crazy' shows little faith on your part.
Click to expand...

That sounds like paranoid talk. Let's see you quote the bible where is says that one of the end time signs is 'one world government', and let's look at that in context.

Next. can you show from a source other than right wing paranoid sites that the Fabian society's goal is 'one world government'?
 
RAMOSS said:
That sounds like paranoid talk. Let's see you quote the bible where is says that one of the end time signs is 'one world government', and let's look at that in context.

Next. can you show from a source other than right wing paranoid sites that the Fabian society's goal is 'one world government'?
Click to expand...

Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?

https://fabiansociety.wordpress.com/

or pick one yourself. https://www.google.com/search?q=Fabian+society%27s+goal+is+%27one+world+government&oq=Fabian+society%27s+goal+is+%27one+world+government&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Your denial of their goals is boring me. Where is your dog in this hunt?
 
WCH said:
Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?

https://fabiansociety.wordpress.com/

or pick one yourself. https://www.google.com/search?q=Fabian+society%27s+goal+is+%27one+world+government&oq=Fabian+society%27s+goal+is+%27one+world+government&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Your denial of their goals is boring me. Where is your dog in this hunt?
Click to expand...

Well, the sites you show about bible prophecy is just plain nuts. The few out of context quotes that they use to attempt to support their claim is really despartly trying to build a lot of meaning into vague symbols that are taken out of context, and trying to weave together disconnected phrases that have nothing to do with each other to push a conclustion that can not actually be supported by the text they use.

The second one is a conspiracy theory nut case that seem very biased. What it doesn't do is , well, provide evidence for it's accusations. You do realize that there is a difference between making a claim, and actually providing evidence for a claim, don't you? That 'fabiansociety.wordpress' is basically an anti-fabian society , anti-socalist site that makes all sorts of claims, yet , does not actually back it up with sources, or anything that can be independently verified. It basically goes in a loop of conspiracy theory people that are anti-socialist, but has no substance beyond it's bite. It goes via insunuation, sly remarks, shady sources, but, well.. fails to actually
quote the one group of people that would matter, and that would be something the fabian soceity itself says.

It b
The quality of your sources, and the fact you could only put a raw link, rather than extract the pertinent data convinces me you only looked at the title, but not the details of your sources.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, the sites you show about bible prophecy is just plain nuts. The few out of context quotes that they use to attempt to support their claim is really despartly trying to build a lot of meaning into vague symbols that are taken out of context, and trying to weave together disconnected phrases that have nothing to do with each other to push a conclustion that can not actually be supported by the text they use.

The second one is a conspiracy theory nut case that seem very biased. What it doesn't do is , well, provide evidence for it's accusations. You do realize that there is a difference between making a claim, and actually providing evidence for a claim, don't you? That 'fabiansociety.wordpress' is basically an anti-fabian society , anti-socalist site that makes all sorts of claims, yet , does not actually back it up with sources, or anything that can be independently verified. It basically goes in a loop of conspiracy theory people that are anti-socialist, but has no substance beyond it's bite. It goes via insunuation, sly remarks, shady sources, but, well.. fails to actually
quote the one group of people that would matter, and that would be something the fabian soceity itself says.

It b
The quality of your sources, and the fact you could only put a raw link, rather than extract the pertinent data convinces me you only looked at the title, but not the details of your sources.
Click to expand...

Sorry but, this is the way you Socialist, Progressive Communists, Marxists, Liberals etc. are viewed. ...by your actions.
 
WCH said:
Sorry but, this is the way you Socialist, Progressive Communists, Marxists, Liberals etc. are viewed. ...by your actions.
Click to expand...

Shrug. You are being obtuse. It doesn't matter how the right wing paranoids blather and react, no matter how emotional they get. What matters is evidence that is more than just opinion and incorrect perception. You seem to not be able to get any information that is not from a site that is full of conspiracy theories, with no connection with reality.
 
RAMOSS said:
Shrug. You are being obtuse. It doesn't matter how the right wing paranoids blather and react, no matter how emotional they get. What matters is evidence that is more than just opinion and incorrect perception. You seem to not be able to get any information that is not from a site that is full of conspiracy theories, with no connection with reality.
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep asking?
 
WCH said:
Then why do you keep asking?
Click to expand...

Because I want you to actually LOOK at your sources, and actually extract the claim from your source. Most often, what you claim is not what your source says.

You are right though, you are incorrigible> It is not really worth trying to discuss things with a brick wall or a box of rocks.
 
RAMOSS said:
Because I want you to actually LOOK at your sources, and actually extract the claim from your source. Most often, what you claim is not what your source says.

You are right though, you are incorrigible> It is not really worth trying to discuss things with a brick wall or a box of rocks.
Click to expand...

I have provided souces that you won't consider. You have provide ZERO rebuttle....none.

"Rothschild, Rockefeller and allied interests were the primary moving force behind liberal (i.e., left-wing) initiatives like “free trade,” “world peace,” “universal brotherhood” and “world organisation,” inexorably leading to the abolition of national sovereignty and the imposition of world government. They were also behind Socialism as a device for bribing and controlling the working class through operations like the Fabian Society and the Milner Group."
 
Bertrand Russell in his history book of philosophy gives a ton of space to John Locke and his Locke-isms that made it into the Declaration Of Independence and into the US Constitution.

Then Russell traces the English events that gave rise to Locke's ideas in the early 1700's and his writings.

Guess we are lucky that Locke was a prolific thinker and writer.

What everyone now believes to be self evident was simply invented by Locke.

I remember one high school civics teacher mentioning Locke's name, no one else doing so in high school or college.
 
Manny said:
Russell wrote a book entitled "Why I am not a Christian", which I have in my collection. I used to buy books when I was a kid...
Here it is online: Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

Russell is only a human being and so is capable of being utterly wrong, most of the time. For example he makes the argument that God cannot be a first cause, since all we need to do as ask "Who made God?" to blow this away. Of course, modern science has since then solved that problem, indicating that time as a dimension has a beginning, per the latest and greatest of cosmic models like M theory, in which this universe of 3 dimensions plus time was created when a higher order multi-dimensional object collapsed. Pope Hawking's answer to "What was there before the big bang" is, there was no before. (Witty article by Hawking)
Click to expand...
I think you're badly mixing QM theories to create that sentence. Do you have a reference for this statement???
 
Manny said:
[hep-th/0108187] From Big Crunch to Big Bang
Click to expand...
Mmmm, OK, that idea - the Ekpyrotic Universe - doesn't propose our 4-D (3+1) universe came from a collapse of an 11-D universe. It's saying our universe (which IS an 11-D universe) arose when one of the spatial dimensions of the previous 11-D universe collapsed and "bounced", restarting another cycle. All of M-theory, as far as I know, uses (requires) an 11-D universe.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Number_of_dimensions
 
"Philosophy" is one word meaning "heck if I know".
 
MoSurveyor said:
Mmmm, OK, that idea - the Ekpyrotic Universe - doesn't propose our 4-D (3+1) universe came from a collapse of an 11-D universe. It's saying our universe (which IS an 11-D universe) arose when one of the spatial dimensions of the previous 11-D universe collapsed and "bounced", restarting another cycle. All of M-theory, as far as I know, uses (requires) an 11-D universe.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Number_of_dimensions
Click to expand...

A SCENARIO FOR THE DIMENSIONAL COMPACTIFICATION IN ELEVEN-DIMENSIONAL SPACE–TIME

Something collapsed. There are a number of competing theories, some of which are already outdated.

Anyway it's off-topic. My intention was not to debate cosmological theory, but to point out that modern science has reached a point that ordinary laymen can't understand what scientists are talking about, unless they use metaphors. That and to address assumptions being made about some sort of law of causality.
 
Manny said:
A SCENARIO FOR THE DIMENSIONAL COMPACTIFICATION IN ELEVEN-DIMENSIONAL SPACE–TIME

Something collapsed. There are a number of competing theories, some of which are already outdated.

Anyway it's off-topic. My intention was not to debate cosmological theory, but to point out that modern science has reached a point that ordinary laymen can't understand what scientists are talking about, unless they use metaphors. That and to address assumptions being made about some sort of law of causality.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reference but it doesn't change the fact that all M-theories, including the one you linked, are 11-D. You said, "...this universe of 3 dimensions plus time was created when a higher order multi-dimensional object collapsed" but "this universe" always has 11 dimensions in M-theory.

All string theories, including M-theory, posit that our universe is composed of 3 expanded spacial dimensions plus 1 time dimension plus other six dimensions that are collapsed (or "rolled up") spacial dimensions (which are probably Calabi–Yau shapes). In M-theory there is one extra dimension (for a total of 11), which could be either another collapsed spacial dimension or a second time dimension. And, yeah, I also have trouble wrapping my head around a second time dimension.


IF there was a previous universe (not all theories claim that) then it was also an 11-D universe. AFAIK not all the spacial dimensions were expanded in previous universes, either - most were collapsed "then", too.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Thank you for the reference but it doesn't change the fact that all M-theories, including the one you linked, are 11-D. You said, "...this universe of 3 dimensions plus time was created when a higher order multi-dimensional object collapsed" but "this universe" always has 11 dimensions in M-theory.

All string theories, including M-theory, posit that our universe is composed of 3 expanded spacial dimensions plus 1 time dimension plus other six dimensions that are collapsed (or "rolled up") spacial dimensions (which are probably Calabi–Yau shapes). In M-theory there is one extra dimension (for a total of 11), which could be either another collapsed spacial dimension or a second time dimension. And, yeah, I also have trouble wrapping my head around a second time dimension.
Click to expand...
I don't remember where I read about this concept that a multi-dimensional object collapsed to form this 3-D universe. It was long ago. It may not have been on the internet, as I was very interested in such cosmological theories back about 10-20 years ago and would read actual books... something from the past nowadays it seems.

But after searching with google for some time, there are now many different competing variants of string theory and superstring theory, kaluza-klein theory and all of them are based on mathematics, not supported by observation or empirical evidence. Some theories describe the collapse of higher dimensions into a lower one, giving rise to the big bang. Here is one paper from 2011 that discusses the concept. Although I admit, not being a theoretical physicist means I don't 'get' the underlying mathematical argument. For the vast majority of lay-persons to embrace these theories is an act of faith in itself.

Pre-big bang collapsing universe from modern Kaluza-Klein theory of gravity.


With apologies to Bertrand Russell...
 
MoSurveyor said:
Thank you for the reference but it doesn't change the fact that all M-theories, including the one you linked, are 11-D. You said, "...this universe of 3 dimensions plus time was created when a higher order multi-dimensional object collapsed" but "this universe" always has 11 dimensions in M-theory.

All string theories, including M-theory, posit that our universe is composed of 3 expanded spacial dimensions plus 1 time dimension plus other six dimensions that are collapsed (or "rolled up") spacial dimensions (which are probably Calabi–Yau shapes). In M-theory there is one extra dimension (for a total of 11), which could be either another collapsed spacial dimension or a second time dimension. And, yeah, I also have trouble wrapping my head around a second time dimension.


IF there was a previous universe (not all theories claim that) then it was also an 11-D universe. AFAIK not all the spacial dimensions were expanded in previous universes, either - most were collapsed "then", too.
Click to expand...

Actually I thought the original Star Trek series did a pretty good job of principlizing this concept way before String/M-Theories were even postulated on napkins. The idea being that the observers inclination of time and space is directly related (In theory) to its position and speed relative to any other observer. Of course time dilation has been shown to be correct, however, what Star Trek did was take this one step, perhaps even many steps further in its episode, "Wink of an Eye"..: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wink_of_an_Eye

Tim-
 
Manny said:
I don't remember where I read about this concept that a multi-dimensional object collapsed to form this 3-D universe. It was long ago. It may not have been on the internet, as I was very interested in such cosmological theories back about 10-20 years ago and would read actual books... something from the past nowadays it seems.

But after searching with google for some time, there are now many different competing variants of string theory and superstring theory, kaluza-klein theory and all of them are based on mathematics, not supported by observation or empirical evidence. Some theories describe the collapse of higher dimensions into a lower one, giving rise to the big bang. Here is one paper from 2011 that discusses the concept. Although I admit, not being a theoretical physicist means I don't 'get' the underlying mathematical argument. For the vast majority of lay-persons to embrace these theories is an act of faith in itself.

Pre-big bang collapsing universe from modern Kaluza-Klein theory of gravity.


With apologies to Bertrand Russell...
Click to expand...
Still not string theory or M-theory.

I didn't say there were no models where multiple dimensions collapsed into our 4-D universe, I said M-theory (string theory as well) didn't have anything like that.



BTW, I do still read paper books. :)
 
Hicup said:
Actually I thought the original Star Trek series did a pretty good job of principlizing this concept way before String/M-Theories were even postulated on napkins. The idea being that the observers inclination of time and space is directly related (In theory) to its position and speed relative to any other observer. Of course time dilation has been shown to be correct, however, what Star Trek did was take this one step, perhaps even many steps further in its episode, "Wink of an Eye"..: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wink_of_an_Eye

Tim-
Click to expand...
An interesting observation - I never really thought of that episode like that. :thumbs:
 
Bertrand Russell's final conclusion to his book "History Of Western Philosophy" is that philosophy must integrate with science in order to make valid speculations on topics not answered by the inductive approach of science.

Science is inductive in that it makes initial observations, formulates hypotheses, determines experiments to test the hypothesis and gather more data, then revise the hypotheses into theories and then ultimately into laws of science.

Philosophy is deductive from original pure thought.

Science and philosophy are opposites in this respect -- inductive versus deductive.

Russell severely criticizes religion throughout the ages from the Greeks to the Christian Churches for impeding progress in both science and in philosophy.
 
Riveroaks said:
Russell severely criticizes religion throughout the ages from the Greeks to the Christian Churches for impeding progress in both science and in philosophy.
Click to expand...
That is what religion needs to do- impede progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom