Sign In
Create Account
Sign Up
Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist • …
TST PRACTICE
Sign In

By Philosopher Michael Alan Prestwood

Sign In
Create Account
PRACTICE

Latest Tidbits

The 10 latest tidbits in about 10 minutes.

Idea 1.

A Science FAQ.

What keeps an electron from collapsing into the nucleus?.

The direct answer is this:

Electrons have a ground state. Collapsing into the nucleus would require more energy, not less. 

To understand, think about gravity and how rocks fall until they hit the ground. To dig into the ground requires more energy. An electron at ground state is akin to a rock resting on the ground — the electron’s lowest permitted energy state. Atoms have a floor not all that different from the ground you and I stand on; both are akin to two repelling magnets.

To be a bit more precise, electrons have potential energy, and they can lose or gain energy but their lowest permitted energy state is its ground state. That much we know. Heck, we don’t yet know if they are more like a rock, wave, or a vibrating string! But they have no lower energy state than their ground state.

That means electrons can reach that “low” an energy state, and no “lower.” Squeezing an electron into a smaller region raises its kinetic energy, so eventually getting closer would require more total energy, not less.

When an electron gains enough energy, it jumps to a higher energy state. Think “farther” away from the nucleus, generally speaking. That’s what Bohr was trying to explain with his familiar flat model of the atom. He later regretted it when science revealed a more complicated picture. Today, science gives us a more accurate cloudy picture: the electron probability cloud.

Why does nature give electrons a ground state in the first place? That’s a deeper, still-open question.

I wrote that Science FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 3 days ago.

 

Idea 2.

A Philosophy FAQ.

What lenses are used within TST Philosophy?.

In TST Philosophy, a lens is an available worldview approach to things like truth, belief, and ethics. Think of it as a way of looking at and evaluating ideas. A lens helps us see a subject through a particular philosophical framework. We might use a Stoic lens to examine virtue, an Epicurean lens to explore pleasure, or a Humean lens to examine experience and the limits of knowledge. Anyone can use these lenses without adopting the entire philosophy behind them.

Within the Open Viewpoint Method (OVM), three worldview lenses are specifically defined: Empirical Pragmatist, Rational Pragmatist, and Irrational Pragmatist. All three consider the usefulness of ideas, but they differ in how they balance usefulness against truth. The empirical pragmatist embraces empirical and rational truths while striving to exclude irrational beliefs. The rational pragmatist generally accepts those truths but makes room for selected personal, cultural, or faith-based beliefs. The irrational pragmatist allows usefulness, emotion, identity, or preference to override evidence or sound reasoning. These three lenses help us understand our own worldview and those of others.

TST Ethics brings additional lenses into its Ethics Roadmap, especially within Personal Morality. The Epicurean Lens helps a moral agent evaluate pleasure. The Stoic Lens focuses acts onto wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. The Existential Lens encourages one to consider authenticity. Each brings something unique to ethical decisions.

Beyond these examples, TST embraces lenses from many philosophical traditions. A Buddhist lens might help us examine attachment and suffering, while a Kantian lens helps us explore duty and principles we could reasonably apply to everyone. The goal is not to adopt every lens or remain trapped within one. It’s to recognize how different approaches shape thinking.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 6 days ago.

 

Idea 3.

A Philosophy FAQ.

OVM Worldview Lenses.

The three OVM Worldview Lenses categorize the way a mind sees the world: empirical pragmatism, rational pragmatism, and irrational pragmatism.

How a mind generally approaches topics?

In ordinary usage, when the term lens is used withing viewpoint prevention, it can overlap with perspective and viewpoint, but not in TST. In TST, a lens is an available worldview approach to things like truth, belief, and ethics, a viewpoint is a thinking position available for any mind to consider, and a perspective is the position of a mind on a specific topic.

OVM Worldview Lenses is a specific TST term.

These lenses describe how a worldview generally balances evidence, reasoning, practical usefulness, and personal belief. All three are pragmatic in that they consider the usefulness of ideas, but they differ in how they balance usefulness against truth. The empirical pragmatist embraces empirical and rational truths while striving to exclude irrational beliefs, allowing reality the final say. The rational pragmatist also accepts the common framework of empirical and rational truths but makes room for selected personal, cultural, or faith-based beliefs that have not earned the same public justification. The irrational pragmatist goes further, allowing usefulness, emotion, identity, or preference to override empirical evidence and sound reasoning, sometimes rejecting shared truths altogether.

Within OVM, these are three defined worldview lenses, not fixed personality types. A person may generally approach life through one lens while using another on particular topics. The distinction is not simply what people believe, but how they manage belief when personal meaning or practical usefulness conflicts with what the evidence supports.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 6 days ago.

 

Idea 4.

A Philosophy FAQ.

OVM Viewpoints.

The three OVM Viewpoints are defined thinking tools used to understand belief, evidence, and doubt: true believer, empiricist, and true skeptic.

In ordinary usage, the term viewpoint often overlaps with perspective or even lens, but not in TST. In TST, a viewpoint is a thinking position available for any mind to consider, a perspective is the position of a mind on a specific topic, and a lens is an available worldview approach to things like truth, belief, and ethics.

OVM Viewpoints is a specific TST term.

The Open Viewpoint Method uses three viewpoints to explore steelman arguments of a topic. The True Believer viewpoint represents the strongest available argument in favor of a topic. The Empiricist viewpoint represents the evidence-based inquiry where science and reason are put above all else. The True Skeptic viewpoint represents the strongest available argument against a topic. These are not labels for entire people. They are tools for exploring how an idea looks from different positions. Take evolution. If you believe evolution, before engaging with a creationist, or better yet, to evaluate the strongest points against evolution, you steelman either an argument against evolution or an argument for creationism; or both. And vice versa, if you are a creationist who has not looked honestly at evolution, create the best steelman argument you can for evolution, open your mind, and evaluate each point.

By examining at least the opposing view of your own, you can better understand disagreements, avoid rigid thinking, and evaluate ideas without confusing a person’s beliefs with the whole person.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 6 days ago.

 

Idea 5.

A Philosophy FAQ.

OVM Perspectives.

The four OVM Perspectives categorize a mind’s position on a particular topic: believer, explorative agnostic, apathetic agnostic, or skeptic.

Where you personally stand on a topic?

In ordinary usage, the term perspective often overlaps with viewpoint or even lens, but not in TST. In TST, a perspective is the position of a mind on a specific topic, a viewpoint is a thinking position available for any mind to consider, and a lens is an available worldview approach to things like truth, belief, and ethics.

OVM Perspectives is a specific TST term.

People hold different positions on different topics. A believer accepts a claim. You might be a believer in things like science, vaccines, evolution, and the Moon landing. A skeptic says a topic is false. You might be a skeptic in things like unicorns, astrology, and Valhalla. Agnostics are in between and there are two types: explorative and apathetic. An explorative agnostic remains uncertain but actively investigates. You might hold explorative agnostic perspectives on things like ghosts, the afterlife, or String Theory. An apathetic agnostic remains uncertain but also wants to be left along. You might hold this perspective for things like the disappearance of D. B. Cooper, what a particular passage of the Catholic Bible says, or the specific political topic of the day. Everyone can benefit by understanding where their interests are and bowing out of dialogue for topics they are apathetic about.

These perspectives describe how someone approaches a specific subject, not their entire worldview or personality. A person can believe one claim, doubt another, and remain agnostic about many others. Understanding these differences helps us discuss difficult subjects without reduction to labels.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 6 days ago.

 

Idea 6.

A Philosophy FAQ.

Why is speculation false in a logical setting?.

In the Idea of Ideas there are three types of ideas: empirical, rational, and irrational. Empirical ideas describe the material world directly, rational indirectly, and irrational not at all. While truth is alignment with reality, human knowledge is a process. The TST epistemic categories are for evaluating ideas, they’re not categories of reality itself.

Within the irrational category there are two subtypes: disproven and speculative. While disproven ideas should be let go of as personal truth, even if they continue to hold personal “pragmatic” value, speculation is different. Speculation is the wellspring of knowledge. New ideas start out as speculative until they earn a place in knowledge.

Why? It’s a matter of logic. TST adopts classical logic as part of critical-thinking. TST’s three categories are epistemic, not logical truth values. They help us evaluate our ideas while preserving a binary commitment to truth.

So, speculative ideas are only false in a logical setting. Until they are proved or disproved, they remain speculative. They have not yet earned established truth status. Within established knowledge, speculation cannot be accepted as true. And when a binary judgment is required, it is treated as false.

Classical logic is bivalent, meaning truth and falsehood form an exhaustive binary pair: if a proposition is not true, it is false. But bivalence alone does not establish whether a speculative proposition is true or false. These are the reasons why TST’s epistemic categories sit above binary logic. Binary logic is sound, but our understanding of reality requires more than binary judgments. Something philosophers have grappled with since before Aristotle’s time. This idea in TST stems from reality itself; something cannot both be true and false, at the same time, and in the same way.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 1 week ago.

 

Idea 7.

A Philosophy FAQ.

How does the Idea of Ideas handle questions?.

You know the old adage about questions:

“There is no such thing as a dumb question.”

Well, sometimes old adages carry wisdom. And the Idea of Ideas brings process to that wisdom.

If a question is about the grand rational framework, it’s empirical, rational, or irrational. If it’s about a speculative framework or uses a false presupposition, it’s irrational. The answer itself is different. Answers are about coherence and truth within a framework. That’s different than empirical and rational truth.

The grand rational framework represents our current understanding of reality. Questions about it fall into three categories. Empirical questions clarify the material world directly. Rational questions clarify indirectly. Irrational do neither, but speculative ideas are the the wellspring of future truth, and the disproven clarifies the boundaries of knowledge. The question “Does life exist on Europa?” is speculative without necessarily assuming anything false. “When did elephants begin flying?” contains a false presupposition.

A speculative framework is a framework that includes unvalidated empirical claims, lacks coherence, or contains disproven empirical implications held as true. Think fiction, unproven theories, the currently unknown, and the unknowable. Questions about speculative frameworks are irrational. They have not earned empirical or rational truth status.

For example: “Was Darth Vader Luke Skywalker’s father?” is an irrational question, sure, but within the fictional story it is logically true. To clarify, take: “Do the Star Wars films establish that Vader was Luke’s father?” That’s about reality, it’s an empirical film question with a rationally true answer.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 1 week ago.

 

Idea 8.

A Philosophy FAQ.

In TST, what is the self?.

The self is the “you” experiencing the now; what that “you” actually is remains debated.

TST takes an explorative agnostic position on defining the self. TST does not define the unknown, but because the self is rich with philosophical implications, I spend considerable time exploring it. In Chapter 17 of 30 Philosophers, I explore the experience of the “now.” Your mind continually prioritizes sensory input, emotions, memories, and both prelinguistic and linguistic thoughts. At the same time, you, whatever that entails, are choosing what to focus on.

What you focus on shapes your experience of the now and can influence your future. Your attention colors impressions, influences memories, and helps shape your worldview and identity. In neuroscience, the salience network is one of the systems helping prioritize what’s important, influenced by things like emotional weight, urgency, familiarity, and expectations. This is part of why practices like Stoicism, meditation, and modern therapy can help us live better lives. By learning to influence the now, we can influence our future.

But who exactly is this “you” making choices? Is this where the self and free will reside? Are we experiencing genuine agency, deterministic processes, or some combination? Is there a persistent self, or does the Buddhist concept of non-self offer a better explanation? How do biology, psychology, and perhaps spiritual ideas fit into the picture? TST leaves these questions open. The experience of the now is something we can investigate, but the ultimate nature of the self remains an open philosophical question.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 2 weeks ago.

 

Idea 9.

A Philosophy TST Term.

Consciousness.

Experiencing reality using senses and cognitive abilities.

TST embraces an experience-centered understanding of consciousness found in traditional philosophy. It can even be shortened to experiencing reality. In this usage, experiencing involves sensory information, perception, memory, and cognitive abilities as a mind interacts with the material world. It does not require language or humanlike self-awareness and includes alien, artificial, and supernatural consciousness.

To better understand consciousness, here’s another word painting. In everyday life, consciousness can mean being awake, aware of your surroundings, or aware of yourself. In philosophy and science, the definitions get more interesting. Sentience concerns the capacity to feel, self-awareness involves recognizing oneself, and cognition includes abilities like learning, remembering, and reasoning. Phenomenal consciousness explores what an experience feels like.

One famous question, the hard problem of consciousness, asks why physical processes give rise to subjective experience. TST does not attempt to settle every aspect of that debate.

In TST, the Mindscape Framework offers a way to explore the different aspects of experiencing reality. It organizes consciousness into four broad categories: none, preconscious, simple, and complex. From there, it explores cognitive ability, memory, sentience, self-awareness, and intelligence. Intelligence itself is explored through general, emotional, and transcendental intelligence. These useful abstractions allow us to explore how a plant, worm, dog, human, or potentially an AI might interact with reality in very different ways, without making human consciousness the standard.

The framework also explores the experience of the “now.” Our present experience is shaped by live impressions, memories, attention, expectations, and emotions. Some impressions fade, while others influence future thinking. Over time, our experiences shape our knowledge, heuristics, worldview, and identity.

I wrote that Philosophy TST Term, 

and posted it to TST 2 weeks ago.

 

Idea 10.

A Philosophy Vocabulary.

Prelinguistic Thought.

A prelinguistic thought is a thought that takes shape before it is formulated in language.

Prelinguistic thought is a traditional concept in philosophy and cognitive science, although its precise meaning varies by context.

In Chapter 17 of 30 Philosophers, I explore prelinguistic thought through my Time Trail Raw exercise. The idea is simple: stop narrating your thoughts with your inner voice and explore the thinking taking place without words. Our thinking can involve imagery, feelings, sensations, memories, and anticipations that are not always adequately expressed through language. When we put our thoughts into words, language helps organize and communicate them, but it can also reshape what we’re thinking.

Modern cognitive science supports the distinction between thinking and language. In speech production, conceptual preparation can occur before the selection and organization of words. And much human cognition, including complex reasoning, can occur without language. Prelinguistic thought is not necessarily a complete thought waiting to be translated word for word. It is the conceptual activity that can precede linguistic expression.

I wrote that Philosophy Vocabulary, 

and posted it to TST 2 weeks ago.

 

The end.

Scroll to Top