>It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important?

Yeah thats basically it.

Analytical Philosophy can generate linguistically true statements. I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. I think this is useful, but I don't think there is ontologically anything more special about circles vs 1 = 1.

>If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it?

You mean, using our detection mechanisms that convert data into something we can understand with human vision and brains? How do we know they are that shape, rather than a 5D string? How do we even know they have a shape, and its not just a failure of our detection mechanisms and its merely useful to imagine it with such a shape? Not to mention, what if all atoms are technically different and we are merely assigning it to be the same shape because we don't understand the differences yet?

Anyway, I reiterate, you are speaking like a Platonic Realist/Scientific Realist. The more modern understanding is withholding ontological beliefs and Instrumentationalism.

I may suggest talking to chatGPT about this. But otherwise maybe send an email or add it temporarily to your profile. I put my philosophy substack in my profile, I'll respond in detail to your thoughts via substack.

> Yeah thats basically it.

Good to know. I'm the opposite, knowing how large the universe is, makes me more curious.

> linguistically true

You seam to perceive any kind of statement as purely linguistical and not really about the thing itself. To me this seams like taking the map for the territory. This makes it hard to argue, because I want to express something about the nature of a thing, but you take it to mean the perception of a thing and seam to reject that the nature of a thing even exists?

> I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1.

Yes that's a tautology. 2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful. But that's not what the meaning of pi is. It is that r -> c is computable and how.

Yes you can claim that tools and perception aren't correct and giving you the truth. I think this leads to the idea that everything is just made-up by your mind and we are all just things your mind images that don't exist at all. This just means that everything is meaningless and nothing can be true at all.

But this idea has a fallacy. Everything you believe or make ideas is based on that you can perceive things a being real and truthfully. If you reject that you can just reject any insight INCLUDING the idea you just had. The idea can't be true, because you just rejected that truth exists. Everything humans do and think assumes that Laplace's daemon exists and that humans somehow participate in it. Without it there is no truth, no understanding, no thoughts; nothing is anymore.

> talking to ChatGPT

Yeah I refrain from that especially for things I don't know about, because I know how subtly incorrect it is about things I know about quite a bit. I also like to my correspondent having a grounding in reality.