In the Beginning...

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Metazoan wrote:Hi ..nameless..,
Hi 'zoan
..nameless.. wrote:I don't even know if you were seeking a thoughtful reply, or that was a glib attempt at wit,...
Both, defiantly both.
Hahaha! Is that what they mean by 'snarky'? Someone told me that they thought that I needed to be more 'Snarky'. Like a 'Snark'?
Good answer! Thanx!
I am grateful for your reply.
Thank you!
..nameless.. wrote:... but it's not up to me, I just write what I must.
Me too.
But of course!
..nameless.. wrote:Any particular reason for me to follow one more link?
There was a reason I posted it. Could I have avoided posting it?
Nope! Could I have avoided not reading it (yet?)? *__-
Are you suggesting that you have a choice whether you follow it or not, or even that we have any degrees of freedom whatsoever? :wink:

'Dog' forbid!!!
But we do have the 'feeling' of 'freedom', at times, and that in itself is sweet. When 'believed' to be other than a 'feeling' is when the violence begins!
While I see that my interpretation of what you are saying does correlate well with what I think a Theory of Everything may suggest, I do not see anything in your writings that proposes an underlying mechanism from which your model is derived.
An " underlying mechanism from which your model is derived"??? Do you mean like 'thought'? I guess that all mental models exist as ('derived from') 'thought'.
My 'model' is original work! There has never been another all inclusive ToE!
I 'derived' it from my own perceptions, experiences, practices, disciplines from many "disparate areas of experience";
“Genuinely successful theories interconnect information from previously disparate areas of experience,” said Adolf Grünbaum, the Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh.
Does your model give you any way to get a handle on the nature of consciousness?
Consciousness has no 'nature' For something to have 'definition' (nature?) it must have (be perceived in) context!
Each and every one of us Perspectives are the 'context' by which the Uncontextual/Reality/Consciousness might be Known (perceived).
Quantum physics has shown that the 'possibility' (undifferentiated poential, Bindu) only becomes our 'Reality' ('differentiated'; collapsed (quanton) 'probability wave') , when it is perceived/observed. The observer and the observed are integrally One!
Your keyboard does not exist if not perceived by a Conscious Perspective!
Any Conscious Perspective!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:"Everything, if it is a 'thing'"?
By definition, everything means ALL! Period. Whether you accept 'thoughts' as things or 'dreams' as things or 'farts' as things... whatever 'exclusive definitions' you might find, are subsets of the complete set of everything - all in existence. Every'thing'!
But when the cat is not upon the mat then it does not exist so it is not true but false that the cat is upon its mat.
That which is perceived exists!
That which exists is perceived!
Not a thing exists that is not perceived!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
All inclusive!!!
You cannot perceive my thoughts, does that mean they do not exist? I cannot perceive my brain, nor my organs, does that mean they do not exist?
Yes!
'True' and 'not true' exist in that one must define the other, that they 'contrast each other, context!
I disagree, contingent truth is based upon what exists, false is based upon it not existing but necessary truth needs no relation to existence nor does necessary falsehood.
This is how true and false are two Perspectives of an unknowable (by any 'subset') and are both simultaneously True! Truth is Truth and False is Truth!
It's ALL True, my friend!
Its a truism that the contradictions are 'true' in the sense that they are always false. What does this idea bring to the idea of a thing being true? As if its all true then there are no falsehoods and if what you say is true then there is no such way of telling if there are truths?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by chaz wyman »

..nameless.. wrote: Ok, lets play 'definition'.
Again, the all inclusive definitions are also called Universal Laws!
I find Truth to be definitionally congruent with;
Reality is everything that exists! Ever!

Everything that exists, exists, is true. Everything does not exist. Things I can imagine to exist cannot exist.

Everything exists!

Nope.

Everything is Real!

Sant Claus is a fiction. He is not real

I see Truth as meaningful when 'grounded' in that which Exists, that which is Real!

By your yardstick that would mean that everything is true such as lies and untruths. Not a very useful way to look at the world.

If Truth is Congruent with an all inclusive Existence and an all inclusive Reality, truth must be all inclusive also! By definition!

Nope.

That is the all inclusive complete 'set'! There are numerous 'sub-sets' that exhibit all manner of 'exclusivity', such as; it's only 'true' if it is... wet! Everything else is a lie!
2 + 2 = 4 only under certain conditions!

WHich is a contradiction to what you have said above.

That is exclusivity.
A very local theory.
But put them/us all together, all us (Conscious Perspectives) unique features of existence/Reality/Truth, and the sum of the parts is all Existence, the complete Universe, Reality, Truth, One Omni- 'Self!'!

Non sequitur. Try again!

That which is perceived exists!

What about visual and audible illusions?

That which exists is perceived!

No. We cannot perceive the dark side of the moon, or the earth's core; or the planets of Alpha Centuari. There are more things imperceptible than are capable of being perceived.

Not a thing exists that is not perceived!
Rubbish.

Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
Rubbish.

(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
Once again rubbish. There is plenty of evidence of things that we might be able to perceive but cannot.

All inclusive!!!

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Are you taking drugs?
Can I have some?


Of course, the 'Complete Set' and the 'subsets' are one and the same, but can only Know 'Self!' (set) through 'Perspectives' (us).
All that is perceived is 'Self!'!
Yet another contradiction. You're not very good at this are you?
As some thing can exist and not exist at the same time
'Truth' is not 'falsifiable'!
There is not anything to not not exist!
I'm guessing it's LSD.

All that Is, is Existence! There is no philosophy or science with the evidence and philosophy to support such a claim as 'non-existence'.
They ALL end in paradox!

Maybe a bit of crack too.

'True' and 'not true' exist in that one must define the other, that they 'contrast each other, context!
All the 'subsets' of Truth, all the 'exclusive' definitions of Truth, can be perceived in context with each other; in a base ten system, under other exclusions while balancing on one's appendix, 2+2=4! One subset of Truth, 2+2=4. That is because there are other 'bases', other numeric systems, other temperatures in which another truth is that 2+2=1 (all appropriate exclusivities apply)... All the baby chicks all nestled safely beneath the wing of the Dragon!
Uh...

No not crack. I think it's got to be LSD and an intoxicant such as cannabis.


The 'Complete Set', 'Existence', 'Truth', 'Reality, 'God', 'Tao', 'Buddha', whatever sits pretty with you... 'Nature'.. whatever... 'Self!'!... has no context!
And therein lies the rub! *__-
This is how true and false are two Perspectives of an unknowable (by any 'subset') and are both simultaneously True! Truth is Truth and False is Truth!
It's ALL True, my friend!

Got it. Not Cannabis. It's got to be LSD with a bit of MDMA.
Kewl!

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:But when the cat is not upon the mat then it does not exist so it is not true but false that the cat is upon its mat.
Schroedinger's Cat? The one that is alive and dead and both and all states between at the same moment?
A perfect illustration!
Are you equating observation/perception with being "on the mat"?
The 'cat' being on the mat or off the mat are two Perspectives of the same One Reality.
how can the cat be both on and not on the mat simultaneously?
It is a matter of Perspective!
Everything can be said to be both true and false, as they are merely two perspectives of the same Reality!
But both notions/thoughts, true and false, are both True!
It is easy, as we have been thinking in those terms for many millennia, to find where something, anything is false. It's cheap and easy!!
But it is not so easy, but gets easier with practice, to perceive how something, anything is True!
From this, our understand/Perspective of Reality grows!
From the exclusionary vision, it shrinks! We know more and more about less and less!
It is time for our thought process to evolve, to get the critical update! *__-
You cannot perceive my thoughts, does that mean they do not exist? I cannot perceive my brain, nor my organs, does that mean they do not exist?
I don't know what you mean by "my thoughts". You do not create them, they exist, and you perceive them. There are many that perceive the same thought as you do, all unique Perspectives.
I don't have to perceive the thoughts that you perceive for them to exist. You perceive them, and that is sufficient! There are at least two Perspectives of anything, and;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics
Besides, what makes you think that you are the only one that must 'perceive' Reality for it to be (Known)?
Brains and organs and thoughts (oh my!) and whatever else, are all perceived, everything that exists is perceived!
It doesn't need to be perceived from 'this' Perspective or 'that' Perspective!
All Perspectives are features of the One Consciousness. If a Perspective within a proton 'perceives' something, that is sufficient for that which is perceived to exist.
I disagree, contingent truth is based upon what exists, false is based upon it not existing

Is this some sort of religion?
How can that which exists (thoughts of 'false') be 'based' on no'thing' that does not exist?
All 'truths' and 'falses' and 'lies' and 'dreams' and opinions and judgments and Perspectives... exist!
one big existence with absolutely no evidence that there is a 'non-existence. There is not, was not nor can be!
Your 'true' and 'false' are solely based on Perspective, context! As 'context' differs, so does that particular 'truth' or 'falseness'.
Depending on Perspective, sometimes, under certain conditions, 1+1=2!
It is true and false and both at the same time!
but necessary truth needs no relation to existence nor does necessary falsehood.
The statement "Everything is True!" is a logical statement and can be 'supported' logically.
The statement "Everything is False!" is an irrational and fallacious statement leading to paradox (error)! It cannot be 'True'!
I don't understand your notion of 'necessary'.
For the term 'Truth' to have any meaning at all, it must coincide with Reality/Existence! in this case, Truth = the sum-total of all Reality! Otherwise, it is meaningless.
That includes Perspectives/perceptions) of (thoughts of) 'falsehoods'! The 'false' (sub-set) is subsumed in an all inclusive Truth (complete Set!)!
if what you say is true then there is no such way of telling if there are truths?
Experience?
Perception is Knowledge!
If someone tells you to put plaster of paris in your car's radiator to stop thje leak, how do you determine whether the advice will be 'true' for you? Or 'false?
You don't need a Magic 8-Ball, you either use your intelligence/thoughts to determine or do the experiment. You will find what is, at the moment, true or not!
Rather than call it 'true' or 'false', howzabout saying that it 'works for you', or not, at the moment, in this context?
"2+2=4 works for me in this context!" (is a true statement!)!
Or "2+2=4 does not work for me in this context!" (is also a true statement)!
That seems a less problematic, yet clearer, evolved, translation of a couple of anachronistic terms that only seem to obfuscate and confuse, no?
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi namless,
..nameless.. wrote:"2+2=4 works for me in this context!" (is a true statement!)!
Or "2+2=4 does not work for me in this context!" (is also a true statement)!
I must admit, I think you are a remarkable thinker, but you need to acknowledge that True for you is something quite trasncendent to the normal conception of the word. When you say the word 'true', most people are only capable of understanding it as meaning the opposite of 'false'. In fact your True contains and endorses both the true and the false and calls them...what? True.

You could use False instead...in fact you could use any word whatsoever to express that which is all inclusive and without an opposite.

But the moment you give this 'all inclusiveness' a moniker, those who do not share your central and astonishing insight will understand that moniker through the lens of their own ignorance - the ignorance that divides the world and does not unite. The wisdom you have, your knowledge of its unrefutability, the sheer grandeur of it cannot be communicated by so paltry a word as True.

I admire what you clearly have, but I worry that you are almost bound to be misunderstood.

Best, Nikolai
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:Schroedinger's Cat? The one that is alive and dead and both and all states between at the same moment?
A perfect illustration!
Nope, the good old logical cat sitting upon a mat.
Are you equating observation/perception with being "on the mat"?
Not sure what you mean by equating? But I am saying you have to look to see if a state of affairs holds.
The 'cat' being on the mat or off the mat are two Perspectives of the same One Reality.
how can the cat be both on and not on the mat simultaneously?
Exactly! It can't and when its not its called false and when it is its called true.

I think you are confusing me as saying 'nothing' can exist, I'm not.

I am talking about Logic and the ideas of truth and falsity. Think of 'existence' in this case as states of affairs, just because one state of affair does not exist does not mean that there is no state of affair, i.e. when there is a mat with no cat upon it then it is false that there is a cat sitting upon it but this does not mean there is not another state of affair, i.e. there is a mat. When there is a cat sitting upon the mat then it is true there is a cat sitting upon the mat. What is not true is that it is both false and true that there is a cat sitting upon the mat when there isn't nor is it false and true that there is a cat sitting upon the mat when there is, and vice versa. its called Logic.
It is a matter of Perspective!
It may well be a matter of perceiving the cat upon the mat but its a matter of the state of affair being the case, not just a matter of someones perspective if its true or false and no matter what ones perspective is it cannot be the case that the cat is both sitting and not sitting upon the mat.
Everything can be said to be both true and false, as they are merely two perspectives of the same Reality!
No, everything can be tested to be true or false, not that things can be both true and false.
But both notions/thoughts, true and false, are both True!
False is only true if it is not true that the state of affairs holds. Negation is not a thing in its own right. Its dependent upon existence in the sense that if the state of affairs does not hold then then its true that the negation holds, i.e. its false that the state of affairs holds. Not that no state of affairs holds.
It is easy, as we have been thinking in those terms for many millennia, to find where something, anything is false. It's cheap and easy!!
But it is not so easy, but gets easier with practice, to perceive how something, anything is True!
Not at all! Science is concerned exactly with discovering which of the states of affairs that Logic calls the contingent propositions are true and which are false. If you want cheap and easy then Logic provides, all the tautologies are necessarily true and can never be false and all the contradictions are necessarily false and can never be true, apart from the truism that they are true by being false. The tautologies are the necessary propositions, the contradictions are the impossible propositions and the rest are the contingent propositions that can be either true or false but not both but we have to test for those.
From this, our understand/Perspective of Reality grows!
From the exclusionary vision, it shrinks! We know more and more about less and less!
It is time for our thought process to evolve, to get the critical update! *__-
No idea what you mean by this? My thought is that manys understanding would improve with a grasp of propositional logic.
I don't know what you mean by "my thoughts". You do not create them, they exist, and you perceive them. There are many that perceive the same thought as you do, all unique Perspectives.
You contradict yourself? My take is that no-one has the same thought as I do, its impossible as thoughts are produced from the body's perception of an external world.
I don't have to perceive the thoughts that you perceive for them to exist. You perceive them, and that is sufficient! There are at least two Perspectives of anything, and;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics
What is true is that there are as many perspectives as there are perceivers but its not true that that there is always an equal and opposite perspective. If this was the case then there would be no communication, language nor truth.
Besides, what makes you think that you are the only one that must 'perceive' Reality for it to be (Known)?
I don't, its you who says that for reality to exist there must be a perceiver and since you say its a unique perception I assume you have to say that it must be the only one possible for that perceiver to know.
Brains and organs and thoughts (oh my!) and whatever else, are all perceived, everything that exists is perceived!
I think you are confusing non-existence as a thing.
It doesn't need to be perceived from 'this' Perspective or 'that' Perspective!
All Perspectives are features of the One Consciousness. If a Perspective within a proton 'perceives' something, that is sufficient for that which is perceived to exist.
You are stretching the concept of perceiving beyond reason. You are what is known in philosophy as an Idealist and a religious one at that. I'll point you to the greatest transcendental Idealist, Kant, who points out that because there is phenomena that we perceive it is impossible for us to perceive its grounds, the noumena, so according to you the grounds of existence do not exist!
Is this some sort of religion?
No, its called Propositional Logic. Its the base of reasoning or at least reasoning with language.
How can that which exists (thoughts of 'false') be 'based' on no'thing' that does not exist?
See what I mean? You are confusing a state of affairs(existence) that does not hold with there then being no states of affairs at all. This is not the case, there are always states of affairs, just some hold at times and some don't. This is how we get true and false.
All 'truths' and 'falses' and 'lies' and 'dreams' and opinions and judgments and Perspectives... exist!
one big existence with absolutely no evidence that there is a 'non-existence. There is not, was not nor can be!
Your 'true' and 'false' are solely based on Perspective, context! As 'context' differs, so does that particular 'truth' or 'falseness'.
Depending on Perspective, sometimes, under certain conditions, 1+1=2!
It is true and false and both at the same time!
No, this is your confusion about how true and false apply to states of affairs, i.e. existence.
The statement "Everything is True!" is a logical statement and can be 'supported' logically.
Not logically it can't.
The statement "Everything is False!" is an irrational and fallacious statement leading to paradox (error)! It cannot be 'True'!
Like your first statement its just false.
I don't understand your notion of 'necessary'.
Its based upon propositional logic. "Something can be or something can not be", (P v ¬P), a necessarily true, i.e. never false, proposition, a tautology. "Something cannot both be and not be at the same time", (P ^ ¬P), a necessary false proposition, i.e. never true, a contradiction, although to be strict what I said was ¬(P^¬P), which is a tautology, i.e. necessarily true and its the proposition (P ^ ¬P) that is the contradiction, i.e. "Something is and not is".
For the term 'Truth' to have any meaning at all, it must coincide with Reality/Existence! in this case, Truth = the sum-total of all Reality! Otherwise, it is meaningless.
Exactly! But only with respect to the contingent truths, as the tautologies and contradictions have nothing to do with reality in the sense of things existing. The sum total of 'reality' is all the tautologies, all the contradictions and all the contingent propositions, i.e. those that depend upon reality to be true or false.
That includes Perspectives/perceptions) of (thoughts of) 'falsehoods'! The 'false' (sub-set) is subsumed in an all inclusive Truth (complete Set!)!
According to your view it cannot be a subset as there is an equal and opposite for every truth?
Experience?
Perception is Knowledge!
If someone tells you to put plaster of paris in your car's radiator to stop thje leak, how do you determine whether the advice will be 'true' for you? Or 'false?
The water will stop leaking. But if you do this you will have a broken engine.

I don't disagree with the Empiricists, I think you don't understand how true and false works with respect to Empiricism.
You don't need a Magic 8-Ball, you either use your intelligence/thoughts to determine or do the experiment. You will find what is, at the moment, true or not!
But according to you I don't need to do this as "Everything is True"!?
Rather than call it 'true' or 'false', howzabout saying that it 'works for you', or not, at the moment, in this context?
"2+2=4 works for me in this context!" (is a true statement!)!
Or "2+2=4 does not work for me in this context!" (is also a true statement)!
That seems a less problematic, yet clearer, evolved, translation of a couple of anachronistic terms that only seem to obfuscate and confuse, no?
No I think not, my advice would be for you to learn some Propositional Logic and Analytic Philosophy and understand how true and false works with respect to reason, existence and reality. Much less problematic than losing the meaning of "true" and "false".

I do think I understand what you are trying to say but think it applies to the concepts of existence and non-existence not the concepts of things being true and false. You might try Bishop Berkeley as a starter upon Idealism but if you are feeling very bold try Kant upon Reason.
p.s.
Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment to show the absurdity of Quantum Physics or at least to highlight what we mean by knowing something, i.e. its not that the cat is both dead and alive, as this is logically impossible, but that the maths shows we cannot predict the outcome until we check. So in the box the cat is either dead or alive, not both.
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:
..nameless.. wrote:Schroedinger's Cat? The one that is alive and dead and both and all states between at the same moment?
A perfect illustration!
Nope, the good old logical cat sitting upon a mat.
Are you inferring that Schroedinger's cat is 'illogical?
The 'cat' being on the mat or off the mat are two Perspectives of the same One Reality.
how can the cat be both on and not on the mat simultaneously? Exactly! It can't and when its not its called false and when it is its called true.
Assuming that everything is true (which it is *__-), I would question how can this be true? How can a cai be both on and off the mat?
Obviously, our perception of the cat snooozing on the mat is direct evidence of the 'cat on the mat'.
'Cat'; defined.
'Mat'; defined.
'On'; hmmm, the wheel doesn't pop into place so quickly on this one.
So, we plug into the equation the term 'Perspective'. This would be necessary to define 'on'.
From our Perspective, he rests sweetly 'on' the mat.
Let's change the Perspective a bit.
How about a microbe living on that mat.
There's some sort of material texture on the mat, 'hemp bristle or woven', even lint, is sufficient for the microbe to take himself away from his celfone, notice the great skyblocking cloud that just settled to rest and purrrr on top of the 'trees'!
I hope he never reaches the mat, I hope that he is never 'on the mat' because he is not now 'on the mat!
So from your perspective, the cat certainly 'is' on the mat! A True statement.
From the microbe's Perspective, the cat is suspended above the mat, and hence, 'not' on the mat. An also True statement.
I am talking about Logic and the ideas of truth and falsity.
Of course! So am I.
its called Logic.
'Logic' is an extremely limited tool of understanding Reality as it is! It is perfect for what it can do, though, no argument.
Quantum physics data has pretty much gutted the foundations and axions of 'logic' as it has been defined.
But, alongside other 'tools', i'm fine with it as a means of knowing.
It is 'logic' that shreds the One Reality, so that it can 'reconnect the dots'. But the resultant chicken scratch will never come close to the Reality before fragmentation.
It is a matter of Perspective!
It may well be a matter of perceiving the cat upon the mat but its a matter of the state of affair being the case, not just a matter of someones perspective if its true or false and no matter what ones perspective is it cannot be the case that the cat is both sitting and not sitting upon the mat.
I have been fascinated by your usage of the phrase; "state of affairs".
As far as I can see, the only 'state of affairs' is 'Truth'! Reality! The entire Universe Is as We Are! One "state of affairs", the 'state' of Reality! Which is singly all inclusive!
So I guess that 'logically', there are many little 'states of affairs' and many more in them!! And so on. How many different 'states of affairs', exactly, do you think exist? Infinite? 42?
Everything can be said to be both true and false, as they are merely two perspectives of the same Reality!
No, everything can be tested to be true or false,
Wellll, there are 'tests', and there are 'tests'... if you know what I mean!
not that things can be both true and false.
We know better now. *__-
Science is concerned exactly with discovering which of the states of affairs that Logic calls the contingent propositions are true and which are false.
And philosophy informs science. Science is one feeder branch on the tree of philosophy!
With a wave of our mind, we can tell science how a whole area of inquiry will be successful or not. One good universal definition of Knowledge, and the whole of epistemology hits the dust, and good thought can be put to better use.
Cards over, that definition is;
"Knowledge; "that which is perceived!""
If you want cheap and easy then Logic provides, all the tautologies are necessarily true and can never be false and all the contradictions are necessarily false and can never be true,

Which is why 'tautologies' are considered logical fallacies!
The tautologies are the necessary propositions,

Yet not logical.
A house built on shaky cards has served us fairly well so far, but the weather outside is frightful, and the only warm though scratchy blanket will fall to shreds! Useless in the face of the Reality revealed in the passing of the storm!
Armageddon;
"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly." --Richard Bach
the contingent propositions that can be either true or false but not both but we have to test for those.
Human tests or microbe tests? I wonder if microbes need to 'test' for 'true' or 'false'.
There are two outdated and obsolete and irrational terms and philosophies that have seen their day. Good riddance (after all the kicking and screaming are over)! They have no other purpose than to stroke the ego! Vain judgment! Pride! Unworthy of a place in a philosophical dicussion!
Religion, perhaps, might be the perfect context for such a prideful thing to exist/flourish!
We are True! You are 'False'!
Burn the witch!
From this, our understand/Perspective of Reality grows!
From the exclusionary vision, it shrinks! We know more and more about less and less!
It is time for our thought process to evolve, to get the critical update! *__-
No idea what you mean by this? My thought is that manys understanding would improve with a grasp of propositional logic.
Only if your 'propositional logic' (obsolete as it is) can get you 'here';

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

But then you'd have to accept the 'Truth' of exerything, the Reality and Existence of All!

The 'dualists' schizophrenic fragmentation of the One must heal! We are evolving!
Who is unworthy of Love?
I don't know what you mean by "my thoughts". You do not create them, they exist, and you perceive them. There are many that perceive the same thought as you do, all unique Perspectives.
You contradict yourself?

Not at all.
My take is that no-one has the same thought as I do, its impossible as thoughts are produced from the body's perception of an external world.
I have seen no evidence that would corroborate the assertion that somewhere in the body, thoughts are being manufactured and immediately stored for 'future' recollection/memory by certain cells.
I thought 'materialism' an obsolete issue. Exactly what cells manufacture what thoughts?

You are seriously telling me that you have never seen another Perspective winking back at you from the other side of a thought? That you looked at each other and Knew, and then both verbalized synchronously?

Not anything actually creates or makes or does anything
"Reality is a synchrony of moments!" - Book of Fudd
Every moment of existence appearing Now!, simultaneously! One timeless 'flash' of all existence, of 'Self! Knowledge'!

'Thoughts' exist, as does all the rest of existence, we perceive that which (for the moment) Is!

External? Like right on the other side of these eyelids? From the outter epidermis? The outter 'auric' shell? Beyond your 'room'?
I see the 'internal/external' thing like this;
Let a great blank whiteness represent Reality, everyting.
There is not anything to perceive, not anything to be perceived as undifferentiated from anything else. Oneness.
Now, lets draw a circle before us in the air. The size doesn't matter (its how you use it! *__- ), pint-size, moon-size...
Now imagine yourself within that circle. How do you know that you are in the circle? By the boundary, the 'definition', clearly to be seen. There is now an 'in here' and an 'out there'. There is a 'me' and there is a 'you'.
So, here we are at the center of a circle all warm and toasty with all identity 'circle' related.
It is ego, thought, that draws the circles. Our egoic self construct is a construct of those imagined circles that we perceive 'in thought'!
We believe it because that is the way it (we) looks, feels, otherwise we would be mad, no?

Then we erase the circle.

We havent moved a micron, not an electrons single vibration and the circle disappears!
Now where are we? Now who are we? We remain (basically) who we were a moment ago, no? So, Now, who might that be?

Perhaps I have 'atrophic-circulo-dystrophy?
Really 'weak' circles?
Poor boundaries.
I perceive no difference between an 'in here' and an 'out there' other than which way you're facin'!
Two Perspectives of the same One Reality!

In a boundless Reality/Consciousness, everywhere is the 'Center'!
Home is wherever we are!
but its not true that that there is always an equal and opposite perspective.
Yes it is!
Point proven!
Wanna try for two? *__-
If this was the case then there would be no communication, language nor truth.
I don't mind seeing the obsolescence of the word 'truth', considering the horrors the belief in it has bestowed upon us all!
Communication will be clearer and honest and open as no one is discredited, no one is marginalized, no one is too stupid... walls down, knowledge and love flow freely! Peacefully (since there is no 'them', only 'us')!
As for language, I think that the following best describes this Perspective;
"Do what you know to be right, say what you know to be true, and leave with faith and patience the consequences to god!" - F.W. Robertson
That might only impact the 'quality' of communication, perhaps. Leading to less misunderstandings, for one.
Besides, what makes you think that you are the only one that must 'perceive' Reality for it to be (Known)?
I don't, its you who says that for reality to exist there must be a perceiver and since you say its a unique perception I assume you have to say that it must be the only one possible for that perceiver to know.

There is One Reality, One Consciousness, that is perceived from an infinite variety of unique Perspectives that it might be Known in It's entirety!
All existence, ever, a single moment of 'Self! Knowledge!'
Talk about a metaphoric 'Big Bang'!
Brains and organs and thoughts (oh my!) and whatever else, are all perceived, everything that exists is perceived!
I think you are confusing non-existence as a thing.
There is not anything to not exist to not be a 'thing'. Every 'thing' exists.
What doesn't?
You are stretching the concept of perceiving beyond reason. You are what is known in philosophy as an Idealist and a religious one at that.

Oh no! Back up a minute. You made an assertion that in a respectful philosophical discussion is open foe examination. Fine.
Then you dismiss me into some convenient 'circle' to leave at the rest stop bathroom, hungry and alone!?!?
I don't think so. I will sign all my worldly posessions to you the moment you can show mw any other philosopher on earth, ever, that has what I offer! I never plagiarized a thing and resent blah, blah, blah...
This is put together 'here' for the 'first' time ever! So far, irrefutable.
Ego rant over.
But you don't get to play that cheap card! I have never seen a philosophy that cannot be refuted in one way or another (some point or another), either scientifically or in philosophical debate.
I'll point you to the greatest transcendental Idealist, Kant, who points out that because there is phenomena that we perceive it is impossible for us to perceive its grounds, the noumena, so according to you the grounds of existence do not exist
!
Thats right! The word exists, of course. It is fair to say the 'noumena' esists. There it is in black and white! Perceived. Now!

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p2.htm#phen
phenomena / noumena

Kant's distinction between things as they appear to us and things as they are in themselves {Ger. Ding an sich}. Although cautious application of transcendental arguments may provide a firm basis for knowledge of the former, Kant supposed, the latter lie forever beyond our grasp.


Things (features of Reality as perceived Now!) are 'exactly as they appear to us Perspectives!! Each and every One of Us!
Knowledge is that which is perceived, and anything and everything that is perceived, all 'Knowledge' ever, exists at the same moment, Now to a single Consciousness! No knowledge is ever isolated from all other perceptions. We can visit the same 'thought' as Da Vinci, at the same moment that he is perceiving it, Now! Perspectives woulf be different, of course.
When there is no 'circle', the center is Everywhere!

there are always states of affairs, just some hold at times and some don't. This is how we get true and false.
I understand the concept. We aren 'evolving' 'beyond that concept', and this is what I offer!
I still hold the notions of 'true' and 'false' are already obsolete! And good riddance! Stay tuned! *__-
No, this is your confusion about how true and false apply to states of affairs, i.e. existence.
Then please alleviate my 'confusion/ignorance' and explain to me what sort of 'true' and 'false' are not grounded squarely upon Reality/existence?
That would be a delight!
That could be my 'circle' problem. I only see one great 'state of affairs', Reality, the Universe, 'Self!', Tao... whatever works for you...
That is the complete 'Set', Reality, there are many 'state of affairs' subsets, though! All those circles that ego/thought perceives.
The statement "Everything is True!" is a logical statement and can be 'supported' logically.
Not logically it can't.
Really? I think that I have been doing a bang-up job, all these hours!
The sum total of 'reality' is all the tautologies, all the contradictions and all the contingent propositions, i.e. those that depend upon reality to be true or false.
The sun-total of exerything = Reality. Each and every feature of Reality is Real exactly as perceived by each and every unique Perspective!
That includes Perspectives/perceptions) of (thoughts of) 'falsehoods'! The 'false' (sub-set) is subsumed in an all inclusive Truth (complete Set!)!
According to your view it cannot be a subset as there is an equal and opposite for every truth?
I said that for every Perspective (of Truth), there is an equal and opposite Perspective (of the same Truth)!
Experience?
Perception is Knowledge!
If someone tells you to put plaster of paris in your car's radiator to stop thje leak, how do you determine whether the advice will be 'true' for you? Or 'false?
The water will stop leaking. But if you do this you will have a broken engine.
Bingo! Knowledge! *__-
Not necessarily involving 'true' or 'false' but arguably useful at times!
The plaster did stop the leak. True. But it also stopped the car. Not useful.
I don't disagree with the Empiricists, I think you don't understand how true and false works with respect to Empiricism.
I do understand, really I do! I have been here long enough to be thoroughly acquainted with the concepts involved.
I'm pointing past it, to the next stage of our 'evolution of thought'.
You don't need a Magic 8-Ball, you either use your intelligence/thoughts to determine or do the experiment. You will find what is, at the moment, true or not!
But according to you I don't need to do this as "Everything is True"!?
Seeee? A better term would be 'useful at the moment' rather than, as in this case, 'true'. See how it immediately muddied the water that you had to respond thus?
Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment to show the absurdity of Quantum Physics or at least to highlight what we mean by knowing something, i.e. its not that the cat is both dead and alive, as this is logically impossible, but that the maths shows we cannot predict the outcome until we check. So in the box the cat is either dead or alive, not both.
It is also true that;
The cat is the quantum probability wave field. The 'undifferentiated potential' that is everything until observed in which case the 'undifferentiated' becomes 'differentiated' by the act of perception! We perceive that which we perceive. The 'quanton' collapses into one or another 'states' of Reality (Perspectives) depending on the Perspective/observer.
Until perceived, it is 'undifferentiated', all states at once! Once perceived, is still all 'states' at once, now perceived by Perspectives, us!
"Consciousness is the ground (all states at once) of all being!"
Conscious Perspectives perceive this or that feature of Reality/Consciousness.

The 'cat' is a large nail in the coffin of your obsolete 'logic'.
To date, every prediction that "the absurdity of quantum physics" has made has been found true 100% of the time! It is responsible for over 25% of the economy, and grows by leaps and bounds every day, and informs every discipline!
If your (obsolete) 'logic' cannot keep up, this is philosophy, change it or dump it!
The old logic had it's place, like sacrifice to the volcano gods, but, well, they frown upon it when they catch you... and... one never quite gets used to being burned at the stake!
Good night *__-
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Nikolai wrote:You could use False instead...in fact you could use any word whatsoever to express that which is all inclusive and without an opposite.
Everything is True! Is a True statement!
Everything is False! On examination, also means that Everything is True, in that the statement itself must be false, which means that it is really saying that Everything is True (which is NOT really saying that Everything is False!)!
the sheer grandeur of it cannot be communicated by so paltry a word as True.

Of course not, notice the 'pointing finger' and where it points! That's the best that I can do. *__-
I have to use common words as there must be at least some 'common ground' for verbal communication to be effective. I do 'redefine' some common terms in my offerings. I find that this makes it a matter of 'understanding' the offered 'translation', rather than having to 'translate it first'.
There are no words to discuss the essence of non-dualism, words themselves are dualistic, they mean this and not that, but one can use them in different arrangements to 'point' to something non-dual.
Head and Heart together!
I admire what you clearly have, but I worry that you are almost bound to be misunderstood.
Oh don't you know it brother!
I work hard indeed in crafting what I write here, to best express this... Perspective. Sometimes 4 or 5 hours for a single reply. That doesn't necessarily indicate quality of thought, but you gotta give me an 'A' for sincerity and honesty and effort! Hahaha!
I understand how 'foreign' and 'non-intuitional' it appears at first; it flies in the face of 'Reality' as we know it!
With War as we Know it!
With greed as we know it, with violence as we know it, with selfishness as we know it... Concervatives? What do we see that is worth 'conserving'? Where has our 130,000 years of schizo-sapiens rule brought us? The world is literally about to ignite in violence of every describable kind such as has never been seen before!!
Good riddance to the schizo-sapiens!!
(Yet they go kicking and screaming into that peaceful night defending their right to war!)

You know I heard a great esoteric definition of 'Armageddon' from George Clooney, of all people!
It means "a lifting of the Veil"!
That puts a whole different light on it, no?
And it is beginning Now!
The global Paradise that I see before me, in about 240 years, will be worth all the pain of Our birth that we must yet endure!
Yes, 'Armageddon' will hurt, at first, as we are beginning to See...
peace
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:Are you inferring that Schroedinger's cat is 'illogical?
No, I'm pointing out that the thought experiment was to show that the conclusions of QM are illogical.
Assuming that everything is true (which it is *__-), I would question how can this be true? How can a cai be both on and off the mat? ...
It can't.
Obviously, our perception of the cat snooozing on the mat is direct evidence of the 'cat on the mat'.
'Cat'; defined.
'Mat'; defined.
'On'; hmmm, the wheel doesn't pop into place so quickly on this one.
So, we plug into the equation the term 'Perspective'. This would be necessary to define 'on'.
From our Perspective, he rests sweetly 'on' the mat.
Let's change the Perspective a bit.
How about a microbe living on that mat.
There's some sort of material texture on the mat, 'hemp bristle or woven', even lint, is sufficient for the microbe to take himself away from his celfone, notice the great skyblocking cloud that just settled to rest and purrrr on top of the 'trees'!
I hope he never reaches the mat, I hope that he is never 'on the mat' because he is not now 'on the mat!
So from your perspective, the cat certainly 'is' on the mat! A True statement.
From the microbe's Perspective, the cat is suspended above the mat, and hence, 'not' on the mat. An also True statement.
You are stretching the idea of a perspective beyond its bounds. The microbe does not have a perspective and if it did then it too would 'know' that there is either a cat above the mat or not but not both.
Of course! So am I.
Are you?
'Logic' is an extremely limited tool of understanding Reality as it is! It is perfect for what it can do, though, no argument.
Quantum physics data has pretty much gutted the foundations and axions of 'logic' as it has been defined. ...
No, what Physics has done is abandon the concept of absolute truth, things are only measurably probably true but Physics is concerned with the contingent statements as applied to reality. Nothing it says 'guts' the foundations of Logic. In fact if you look you will see that where it tries to found a natural language model of its experimental results it uses a Modal Logic to do so.
But, alongside other 'tools', i'm fine with it as a means of knowing.
This is your mistake as its not a means of knowing but the structure of reasoning.
It is 'logic' that shreds the One Reality, so that it can 'reconnect the dots'. But the resultant chicken scratch will never come close to the Reality before fragmentation.
Given that because we are a body with senses in a reality we do not perceive reality at all and if Kant is right we never can. So I'm at a loss how you think that from your perspective you can have any inkling of this 'One Reality'? Logic 'shreds' nothing, its just the way we reason with propositions.
I have been fascinated by your usage of the phrase; "state of affairs".
As far as I can see, the only 'state of affairs' is 'Truth'! Reality! The entire Universe Is as We Are! One "state of affairs", the 'state' of Reality! Which is singly all inclusive!
So I guess that 'logically', there are many little 'states of affairs' and many more in them!! And so on. How many different 'states of affairs', exactly, do you think exist? Infinite? 42?
I think I know the question to 42, do you?

Its a truism that the Universe is the whole state of affair but within it some things hold and some don't. So a cat being upon the mat and not being upon the mat does not hold, its why we have true and false about the states of affairs that we find ourselves in.

I'm surprised you manage to function in this reality if you think this? As what point you doing anything as all things must be done in your reality. What need you to buy food as the food is already there when it is not?
Wellll, there are 'tests', and there are 'tests'... if you know what I mean!
Not really. But I agree that some of the contingent propositions may never be able to be tested in a physical sense, so I doubt we'll be getting to the center of the Earth anytime soon.
We know better now. *__-
Do we?
And philosophy informs science. Science is one feeder branch on the tree of philosophy!
With a wave of our mind, we can tell science how a whole area of inquiry will be successful or not. One good universal definition of Knowledge, and the whole of epistemology hits the dust, and good thought can be put to better use.
Cards over, that definition is;
"Knowledge; "that which is perceived!""
:lol: "One good universal definition of Knowledge" is the aim of Epistemology!

Your definition is and has been proposed in philosophy for yonks, its called Empiricism and the Newtonian Metaphysicians took it and ran with it, so much so that philosophy pretty much informs nothing in science anymore, apart from Logic that is.http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newt ... aser_Sword
Which is why 'tautologies' are considered logical fallacies!
What do you think this means?

It does not mean that they are not necessarily true, it just means that they are of no use when making an argument about the world as they do not apply to the world in any real sense, as they are to do with how we reason, they are one side of the bounds of reason, the other being the contradictions.
This may help with your understanding of the logical fallacies,
http://www.freewebs.com/thinkingstraight/Fallacies.htm
Yet not logical.
You clearly don't understand Logic if you think this.
A house built on shaky cards has served us fairly well so far, but the weather outside is frightful, and the only warm though scratchy blanket will fall to shreds! Useless in the face of the Reality revealed in the passing of the storm!
Armageddon;
"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly." --Richard Bach
That you now resort to emotive metaphor and posey makes me think yours the shaky perspective. Caterpillars call nothing.
Human tests or microbe tests? I wonder if microbes need to 'test' for 'true' or 'false'.
Show me your microbes tests, what propositions are they stating?
There are two outdated and obsolete and irrational terms and philosophies that have seen their day. Good riddance (after all the kicking and screaming are over)! They have no other purpose than to stroke the ego! Vain judgment! Pride! Unworthy of a place in a philosophical dicussion!
Religion, perhaps, might be the perfect context for such a prideful thing to exist/flourish!
We are True! You are 'False'!
Burn the witch!
I think your words demonstrate how little the words of the philosophers have reached the modern world. But LMAO that you think "Everything is True" does not display what you decry.
Only if your 'propositional logic' (obsolete as it is) can get you 'here';

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

But then you'd have to accept the 'Truth' of exerything, the Reality and Existence of All!

The 'dualists' schizophrenic fragmentation of the One must heal! We are evolving!
Who is unworthy of Love?
Get me where? As according to you there is no "here" or "there" or "where"? I think you completely misunderstand what Logic is.
Not at all.
If my perspective is unique it cannot be anothers and therefore it cannot be all of a one? If it is all of a one then it cannot be unique.
I have seen no evidence that would corroborate the assertion that somewhere in the body, thoughts are being manufactured and immediately stored for 'future' recollection/memory by certain cells.
I thought 'materialism' an obsolete issue. Exactly what cells manufacture what thoughts?
Not heard of neurons?

From what I understand you also appear to be a reductionist as many of your arguments appear to rely upon the Newtonian metaphysicians discoveries. Why do you think the explanation for some things can be reduced in this way?
You are seriously telling me that you have never seen another Perspective winking back at you from the other side of a thought? That you looked at each other and Knew, and then both verbalized synchronously?
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Not anything actually creates or makes or does anything
"Reality is a synchrony of moments!" - Book of Fudd
Every moment of existence appearing Now!, simultaneously! One timeless 'flash' of all existence, of 'Self! Knowledge'!

'Thoughts' exist, as does all the rest of existence, we perceive that which (for the moment) Is!
Who is this "we" that is doing the perceiving in this model?
External? Like right on the other side of these eyelids? From the outter epidermis? The outter 'auric' shell? Beyond your 'room'?
I see the 'internal/external' thing like this;
Let a great blank whiteness represent Reality, everyting.
There is not anything to perceive, not anything to be perceived as undifferentiated from anything else. Oneness.
Now, lets draw a circle before us in the air. The size doesn't matter (its how you use it! *__- ), pint-size, moon-size...
Now imagine yourself within that circle. How do you know that you are in the circle? By the boundary, the 'definition', clearly to be seen. There is now an 'in here' and an 'out there'. There is a 'me' and there is a 'you'.
So, here we are at the center of a circle all warm and toasty with all identity 'circle' related.
It is ego, thought, that draws the circles. Our egoic self construct is a construct of those imagined circles that we perceive 'in thought'!
We believe it because that is the way it (we) looks, feels, otherwise we would be mad, no?

Then we erase the circle.

We havent moved a micron, not an electrons single vibration and the circle disappears!
Now where are we? Now who are we? We remain (basically) who we were a moment ago, no? So, Now, who might that be?

Perhaps I have 'atrophic-circulo-dystrophy?
Really 'weak' circles?
Poor boundaries.
I perceive no difference between an 'in here' and an 'out there' other than which way you're facin'!
Two Perspectives of the same One Reality!

In a boundless Reality/Consciousness, everywhere is the 'Center'!
Home is wherever we are!
Care to say any of this in comprehensible English?
Yes it is!
Point proven!
Wanna try for two? *__-
Show me where you have 'proved' this? You mean because you believe or say it?
II don't mind seeing the obsolescence of the word 'truth', considering the horrors the belief in it has bestowed upon us all!
And yet you use the word in every assertion you make about "Everything"?
Communication will be clearer and honest and open as no one is discredited, no one is marginalized, no one is too stupid... walls down, knowledge and love flow freely! Peacefully (since there is no 'them', only 'us')!
As for language, I think that the following best describes this Perspective;
"Do what you know to be right, say what you know to be true, and leave with faith and patience the consequences to god!" - F.W. Robertson
That might only impact the 'quality' of communication, perhaps. Leading to less misunderstandings, for one.
There you go, using the term again? But I'm not surprised that you turn out to be a godbotherer.

My take is that communication would be more clearer and honest if people paid more attention to how we communicate, hence I promote NLP for clearer thoughts and thinking and a basic understanding of Logic would help.
There is One Reality, One Consciousness, that is perceived from an infinite variety of unique Perspectives that it might be Known in It's entirety!
All existence, ever, a single moment of 'Self! Knowledge!'
Talk about a metaphoric 'Big Bang'!
Personally, if I was going to bother with metaphysics, I'd choose the planck-bit 'computer' as the 'One Reality', but since I think metaphysics pretty much nonsense-upon stilts when it comes to discovering what reality is, I'll leave it to metaphysicians who appear to have actually come-up with a useful method for doing such things, i.e. the Newtonians.
There is not anything to not exist to not be a 'thing'. Every 'thing' exists. What doesn't?
I agree but then you now have to have levels of existence, otherwise you will be equating unicorns as existing in the same way as a big red bus, I don't recommend doing this in the real world. So what level of existence do you talk about when you say everything exists?
Oh no! Back up a minute. You made an assertion that in a respectful philosophical discussion is open foe examination. Fine.
Then you dismiss me into some convenient 'circle' to leave at the rest stop bathroom, hungry and alone!?!?
I don't think so. I will sign all my worldly posessions to you the moment you can show mw any other philosopher on earth, ever, that has what I offer! I never plagiarized a thing and resent blah, blah, blah...
This is put together 'here' for the 'first' time ever! So far, irrefutable.
Ego rant over.
But you don't get to play that cheap card! I have never seen a philosophy that cannot be refuted in one way or another (some point or another), either scientifically or in philosophical debate.
I did not accuse you of plagiarism. But I think you not read enough if you think your thoughts are new, as you are obviously an idealist, a reductionist and probably a pantheist of some sort. Most of your thought appears to be a mish-mash of 'eastern' religion and 'new-age' ideas, combined with ideas from physics, a fairly common occurrence.

What do you mean by "a philosophy"?
Thats right! The word exists, of course. It is fair to say the 'noumena' esists. There it is in black and white! Perceived. Now!
What do you mean by "perceived" with respect to the noumena?
Things (features of Reality as perceived Now!) are 'exactly as they appear to us Perspectives!! Each and every One of Us!
Knowledge is that which is perceived, and anything and everything that is perceived, all 'Knowledge' ever, exists at the same moment, Now to a single Consciousness! No knowledge is ever isolated from all other perceptions. We can visit the same 'thought' as Da Vinci, at the same moment that he is perceiving it, Now! Perspectives woulf be different, of course.
When there is no 'circle', the center is Everywhere!
No idea what you are talking about?
I understand the concept. We aren 'evolving' 'beyond that concept', and this is what I offer!
I still hold the notions of 'true' and 'false' are already obsolete! And good riddance! Stay tuned! *__-
And yet you keep using the term "true"?
Then please alleviate my 'confusion/ignorance' and explain to me what sort of 'true' and 'false' are not grounded squarely upon Reality/existence?
That would be a delight!
That could be my 'circle' problem. I only see one great 'state of affairs', Reality, the Universe, 'Self!', Tao... whatever works for you...
That is the complete 'Set', Reality, there are many 'state of affairs' subsets, though! All those circles that ego/thought perceives.
Tell me how or where from your unique perspective you can see the complete set?

The only sort of true and false that are not grounded squarely upon reality are the tautologies and the contradictions. But you will have to say what you mean by reality, as like your existence you appear to have many types that you conflate as one?
Really? I think that I have been doing a bang-up job, all these hours!
Really? Given you don't understand how true and false works logically, what makes you think that the rest of your 'logic' is up to scratch, especially since you claim that logic is an outmoded method?
The sun-total of exerything = Reality. Each and every feature of Reality is Real exactly as perceived by each and every unique Perspective!
No idea what you are talking about?
I said that for every Perspective (of Truth), there is an equal and opposite Perspective (of the same Truth)!
Yes, its called false.

What do you actually mean by this, can you give an example?
Bingo! Knowledge! *__-
Not necessarily involving 'true' or 'false' but arguably useful at times!
The plaster did stop the leak. True. But it also stopped the car. Not useful.
Not at all! It is true that it stopped the leak. That it was not true to the proposition, "If you use plaster-of-paris to fix your radiator then your car will be fine" is the issue about whether its a useful practice.
I do understand, really I do! I have been here long enough to be thoroughly acquainted with the concepts involved.
I'm pointing past it, to the next stage of our 'evolution of thought'.
I think you misuse 'evolution' as well.
Seeee? A better term would be 'useful at the moment' rather than, as in this case, 'true'. See how it immediately muddied the water that you had to respond thus?
I was not muddying the water, I was pointing-out a contradiction in your thoughts.
It is also true that;
The cat is the quantum probability wave field. The 'undifferentiated potential' that is everything until observed in which case the 'undifferentiated' becomes 'differentiated' by the act of perception! We perceive that which we perceive. The 'quanton' collapses into one or another 'states' of Reality (Perspectives) depending on the Perspective/observer.
Until perceived, it is 'undifferentiated', all states at once! Once perceived, is still all 'states' at once, now perceived by Perspectives, us!
"Consciousness is the ground (all states at once) of all being!"
Conscious Perspectives perceive this or that feature of Reality/Consciousness.
There is nothing for this to be 'true' about. Maths is just another model or formal system, like Logic, by which we understand the world. That when we attempt to translate its concepts back to natural language we pretty much say nonsense just points to Maths as not being connected to reality. You are making the mistake that we are actually accurately describing the noumena.
The 'cat' is a large nail in the coffin of your obsolete 'logic'.
To date, every prediction that "the absurdity of quantum physics" has made has been found true 100% of the time! It is responsible for over 25% of the economy, and grows by leaps and bounds every day, and informs every discipline!
If your (obsolete) 'logic' cannot keep up, this is philosophy, change it or dump it!
The old logic had it's place, like sacrifice to the volcano gods, but, well, they frown upon it when they catch you... and... one never quite gets used to being burned at the stake!
Good night *__-
No idea what you mean by 'old' logic as QM is using modal logics to try and model the maths. You are making the mistake that the natural language explanations have any bearing upon the ability of QM to model the phenomena they are exploring. It would make no difference if they decided it was all pixies and fairies or the FSM that is responsible for the ' observed' 'behaviours' of particles, as long as the Maths works. How do you reconcile this by the way? That QM says its all particles, how does your 'One' fit here?

I think this is one of the major problems with the thoughts of scientists who are trying to make a model of the maths becoming metaphors in the larger society. It happened with relativity and evolution, which I think you are also using, now with the ideas of 'quantum wave functions', et al. Mainly I think due to a lack of philosophical education about such things(I mean in the general populace).
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:......
Arising, I have read your entire post, and I do appreciate all the time and energy that you have invested in our conversation.

At this time, I don't see the point of taking this discussion any further.
Perhaps another one, another time.
Again, thanks
peace
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by chaz wyman »

Arising 1
nameless 0
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

chaz wyman wrote:Arising 1
nameless 0
Doesn't this place have an age limit, son?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:Arising, I have read your entire post, and I do appreciate all the time and energy that you have invested in our conversation.
As do I yours.
At this time, I don't see the point of taking this discussion any further.
Its your prerogative.
Perhaps another one, another time.
Maybe and I hope our discussion helps you refine your thoughts. As I think I understand what you are trying to say but I think you need to find another way to say it as philosophically much of it is in error or has already been said.
Again, thanks
peace
And harmony.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by chaz wyman »

..nameless.. wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Arising 1
nameless 0
Doesn't this place have an age limit, son?
No. It does not have a prescription against humour either.
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:Maybe and I hope our discussion helps you refine your thoughts. As I think I understand what you are trying to say but I think you need to find another way to say it as philosophically much of it is in error or has already been said.
Sorry, you really don't understand what I offer, it is very clear to me by your feedback!
You are, of course, premature in your dismissal and pedantic demeanor! No problem.
I find that we are simply two equal and opposite Perspectives.
The difference is that your vision is so restricted that you can only see your Perspective as 'right' and any 'others' as 'wrong'.
The only real difference is that i accept all Perspectives as Reality, you only accept your's. Old ego blather!
Not uncommon. That error has a long list of subscribers, and has treated the world to the horror that it is for most people today.
How's that little box in which you live working for you? Learning much? Still singing the same old song?
Whatever...

Something in which I see myself and you (in that order);

" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

The 'past' is certainly one feature of Reality (but only your's is true, I know!), moving on..

Our conversations are over, though, if that asinine pedantic tone continues; gee, 'if only I were more educated/intelligent in the ways of the last couple millennia I'd agree with you.'
Hardly!
If only you'd learned anything from the last few millennia, you would be able to understand that which you refuse (ego?) to even attempt to understand, or are incapable (is there a difference?) of understanding.

"Where you are, I was, where I Am.... you should be so lucky!!"

See? I don't think that egoic pedantic sh!t is philosophy. Nor is simply arguing every little point for no good reason. Teens do that. Unintelligent teens...
The intelligent ones make sure that they understand before arguing. After understanding something, there is rarely a need to 'argue' in the first place.
Understanding works like that.

Thats why my 'ignore list' is full of cement-headed blissful idiots!
Their juvenile 'abilities' are a waste of valuable time.

Maybe we can try it again sometime, and end the discussion before it degrades as this one has (which is why I discontinued response, you were just arguing for argument's sake and wasting my time).
Now I know the signs.
Thank you!
Post Reply