The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:25 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:15 am
ROFL!!!!!!!!!

What a crock of religious fundamentalist bullshit. People have been trying to control everything since before recorded time...it is the worlds oldest religion.

And look what changed...they are all dead and most are forgotten.
They are dead and mostly forgotten. But their knowledge benefits mankind. And yes - it is the world's oldest religion. The desire for determinism ;)

Look around you. Are you trying to tell me that the world today is the same as it was 3000 years ago?

You are still seeking personal glory.
How am I seeking personal glory when I am arguing all personal glory is forgotten. Overcome yes, personal glory no.

People love, hate, eat, fuck, beg for social status, etc.... letters from ancient Rome mirror almost exactly the types of conversations people have today. It is just another variation of the same thing.

The only difference is that we forgotten how to get out of ourselves and sacrifice.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
How am I seeking personal glory when I am arguing all personal glory is forgotten. Overcome yes, personal glory no.
Then why did you focus on the part of those who are forgotten and didn't focus on their contribution to mankind?

Their legacy remains.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
People love, hate, eat, fuck, beg for social status, etc.... letters from ancient Rome mirror almost exactly the types of conversations people have today. It is just another variation of the same thing.
But we don't die at 35.
We have instant global communication.
We can travel around the world in hours.
We can search the world's knowledge in seconds.
We have stable societies/democracies.

You seem to have adopted the cynical 'the more things change - the more they stay the same'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
The only difference is that we forgotten how to get out of ourselves and sacrifice.
Those who sacrifice are dong it without much lip service. And definitely without philosophy.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:48 am, edited 3 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:36 am

A sentiment from Will Durant that may be relevant:
A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean. At its cradle (to repeat a thoughtful adage) religion stands, and philosophy accompanies it to the grave

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:30 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
How am I seeking personal glory when I am arguing all personal glory is forgotten. Overcome yes, personal glory no.
Then why did you focus on the part of those who are forgotten and didn't focus on their contribution to mankind?

Their legacy remains.


Maybe so, there is no doubt that their ideas formed the world in which we live. And that is the problem, "their" ideas formed the world in which we live. I mean let's face the obvious truth, the world is formed upon "idea". The hedon and the idealist both face this dilemma. They form a perspective, a system of reasoning, based off of the intensity of some experience (internal or external) and then they fashion the world in accords to that idea.

They felt "timelessness" for a moment, and that set the standard for their course of action, thus bending time and space (even through a simple stroke of the hammer) trying to replicate it.

That "idea", something we can only touch loosely in the creation of our own hands.

And what are these ideas? They are but drops forming the ocean we deal with today. We see how they played out in accords to the world today.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
People love, hate, eat, fuck, beg for social status, etc.... letters from ancient Rome mirror almost exactly the types of conversations people have today. It is just another variation of the same thing.
But we don't die at 35.
Most of us are cold and empty inside, jumping about for some scrap of warmth as we lift our hearts and minds to the stars raging at them trying to carve out order through a simple question. People are already dead, age is just a number mean to give ratios to the movements that define our lives.





We have instant global communication.
Yes...to post cat videos and pictures of ourselves intended to send us in a cathartic narcissism, which is kind of ironic considering cat videos, an animal which does what it wants and cares only for itself, represents an archetype of the narcissistic state and was the common "pet" of lonely egyptian royal towards their downfall as an empire...due to pride.

Modern social media is just a replication of the narcissus myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_%28mythology%29 where we fashion a sea of glass instead of staring into a simple stream. Not that this really matters considering the nature of social media is strictly just a heraclitian type of river fashioned in accords to our own wills...and what is the will of man really?

We take one mystery, that of "Divinity" and degradate it to that of the "self".

I mean it really is fitting though, the narcissus myth, as it is premised fundamentally on masturbatory self-pleasure. He ends up marrying his twin sister in the end, which ironically gives a new sense of irony to Nietzche's projection and his romance with his sister. Take that thought, expand it to a generation of self-pleasuring millennials preening their egos and we get a deep love for darkness. Walk into a store, look at the books. Turn on the t.v.'s and look at the titles. See how often you see the word's "dark" and "sexy" as it represents some deep unconscious state where a universal zietgeist begs to return to some form of primal origin...the void. We live in a time where "death" is deified, and desolation is the moral norm as some form of birth control of the soul. Progress is strictly a universal oedipul drive into oblivion where "matter" becomes the universal "mother".



It is just a roaring ocean of desires, fulfilled...unfulfilled, crashing like a storm inside of his heart giving foundation to some mania that electrifies it's very being. People are enamored by what is "bright and shiny"...electrify them and the soul is pulled apart at its foundations giving birth to raw untapped force.

I mean that what is really is founded on isn't it? Division. Contradiction. A tension between what is owned and what is not owned. What is possessed and what is not possessed. What is understood and what is not understood.







We can travel around the world in hours.
Travel to "where" exactly? A man is stuck with himself regardless of where he goes. He may say to himself "what beauty..." as he stares at some grand peace of architecture or a woman of exotic characteristics...and this he constitutes as "knowledge".

So he let's these memories imprint themselves in him, thinking some form of identity will be given to him, but these memories are strictly a path cut by the perpetual fire of time. The deeper time sears itself the deeper man believes he has found some underlying truth because of an intensity of pain...the only thing self-evident to all people...loss. And all of this ties itself into sacrifice doesn't it?

People travel...people continually "look"...because they have no clue who they are. They don't want to, because it would require some sense of crucifixion and humiliation.

If "experience" is founded then some sense of identity occurs...a sense of "self-hood" which acts as a weight around the neck or some "crown" on the head.

We live in a time of perpetual victimhood because of our obsession with time is strictly a deep in-rooted masochistic tendency. All of this founded upon an unconscious desire for self-annihilation where people feel guilt over innocence.


Look at a child. The child does what a child does. As he or she gets older they start measuring out time, trying to put together movements that will somehow give them an identity. And why? Because a child learns it is not good if enough until broken apart again and again until it is refashioned into some new...whatever. Which is fine, mind you, until a little problem occurs:

The problem occurs that no one really knows what an identity is. It is just a box...a womb, that gives some sense of self-pleasuring security and hence we cycle back to the narcissus myth.


If everything goes to "black" then we go back into the womb unaware and unknowing. And that is the great irony, people look at the flame of movements on social media, meant to stoke and give warmth to some false sense of self. And like all fires it has to be fed...so they chop themselves up into images and burn them hoping the smoke rises and pleases the public. It is a communally agreed upon self-immolation, reminiscent of child sacrifice to the ancient storm-god Baal, where innocence and virginity is burnt away to help people forget what they lack and send the psyche into a state of ignorance. If we kill our innocence.






We can search the world's knowledge in seconds.
And lose it in seconds. Social media is just a perpetual fire we all stare into and worship like our ancestors. Knowledge does little unless it is fed. And we feed it by chopping up all everything we see and know. Atomism, Deductivity, Social Status...all applications of a scalpel meant to dissect reality.





We have stable societies/democracies.

Democracy is where the stomach and the dick take hold of the rational faculties. People know what they want until they get it, then curse fate when want is fulfilled. And they curse fate, because like "want", it leaves us in a state of helpless chaos. Desire is a cruel and fickle lover, one that is founded in a perpetual dance of opposition between man's true self and his shadow. It is the complete opposite of any form of marital like synthetic joining.





You seem to have adopted the cynical 'the more things change - the more they stay the same'.

Even cynicism dies when staring into it. Look at the cynic. He "thrives" on the annihilation of some materialistic extreme. We don't see cynics in any other environment but one of excess. Look at the history of Diogenes or the gen "x"er's. They are strictly polarized processes their environment gave birth too. One extreme risen to counter another. With the "light" of material excess comes a rising of the darkness of the psyche. They are grounded in division and the pulling apart of every phenomenon that constitutes perceivable reality.





Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am
The only difference is that we forgotten how to get out of ourselves and sacrifice.
Those who sacrifice are doing it without much lip service. And definitely without philosophy.
People sacrifice no matter what they do, every "movement" is strictly a loss of the self into a perpetually unfolding reality. Even this very small conversation, results in some form of change that will lead to other change. Some sense of "self-hood" unfolds, briefly grows, and dies like wheat in a field only to set the seeds for further change.

You may say it is without philosophy, but I never met a person who lost himself to something without giving an "idea" as to why.

The question of "sacrifice" is less one of "honor" or "cowardice" but rather how is this natural law to be directed where the very base impulse of man is subverted under a roaring ocean of opinions...all of which think they are "the idea" of all time. And that is the thing. An "idea" is strictly just a small seed, an idol of the will, that grows and roots itself into our being directing it elsewhere.





I think I will take this section and turn it into a thread, because it is really going off topic.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11846
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: The framework doesn't make sense, it is a public secret.
The framework does matter as the framework is the actual speed we measure in the vacuum of space not this conceptual abstract 'absolute vacuum' that you tie yourself in knots about which more than likely cannot exist. Like all metaphyscians who ignore the emergence of the Natural Philosophers and still think Aristotle a viable route to truth about the world you ignore that the touchstone of truth about the world is the world and as such tie yourself in conceptual knots as you have no way to reconnect to existence.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: The framework doesn't make sense, it is a public secret.
The framework does matter as the framework is the actual speed we measure in the vacuum of space not this conceptual abstract 'absolute vacuum' that you tie yourself in knots about which more than likely cannot exist. Like all metaphyscians who ignore the emergence of the Natural Philosophers and still think Aristotle a viable route to truth about the world you ignore that the touchstone of truth about the world is the world and as such tie yourself in conceptual knots as you have no way to reconnect to existence.
ROFL...Aristotle is dead and many still follow Aristotelian logic.

Any philosophical origins you see me argue go back further to the presocratics and prior.

I never said the framework doesn't matter...I said it doesn't make sense. Don't twist language.

1. The vacuum is not complete for a variety of reasons as mentioned above.

2. Knowing or not knowing the speed of light does not necessitate some deep connection to existence.

3. The speed of light is theoretical.


Save your quasi religious belief in physics.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
1. The vacuum is not complete for a variety of reasons as mentioned above.
Why do you insist on absolutes/completeness?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
2. Knowing or not knowing the speed of light does not necessitate some deep connection to existence.
It is the closest thing to a constant (axiom?) we have.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
3. The speed of light is theoretical.
No. Only relative (within a margin of error).
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
Save your quasi religious belief in physics.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:08 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
1. The vacuum is not complete for a variety of reasons as mentioned above.
Why do you insist on absolutes/completeness?

Because relativity is an absolute truth leading to a contradiction in terms where both absolute truth and relativistic truth exist simultaneously in perceived opposition.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
2. Knowing or not knowing the speed of light does not necessitate some deep connection to existence.
It is the closest thing to a constant (axiom?) we have.

Not really, the closest thing to an Axiom we have is that fact Axioms exist.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
3. The speed of light is theoretical.
No. Only relative (within a margin of error).

The degree of error is what differentiates theory and non-theory, and this "error" is merely an observation between abstract and empirical phenomena with these phenomena in turn being differentiations.

Because this "symmetry" is what fundamentally gives definition an inherent form of approximation always occurs in the face of perpetual variation. For example arithmetic may be proven as true in the face of dividing a grapefruit in half. The arithmetic is justified by the division of the grapefruit. The grapefruit is justified by the arithmetic.

However the division of the grapefruit in half is really an approximation of (1/2) = .5 and 2(each piece becomes one in itself) as the actual grapefruit itself is never really observed fully in a "halved/doubled" state. Hence this leads us to it justifying infinitesimals, with the infinitesimals in turn justifying how the grapefruit is observed. Etc.

Relativity requires a constant state of particulation between one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon and in itself is effectively a process of individuation through inversion, in which one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon inverts to many with these many, existing in one in themselves, inverting back to one.

This projective nature of atomic factual/empirical phenomenon, with "atomic" being synonymous to "particle", "part", "locality" and a myriad of other words and definitions subject to this same progressive linear nature, necessitates a form of axiomization in itself where the root foundation of "self-evidence" is premised in the defining characteristics of linearism.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
Save your quasi religious belief in physics.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:08 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
1. The vacuum is not complete for a variety of reasons as mentioned above.
Why do you insist on absolutes/completeness?

Because relativity is an absolute truth leading to a contradiction in terms where both absolute truth and relativistic truth exist simultaneously in perceived opposition.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
2. Knowing or not knowing the speed of light does not necessitate some deep connection to existence.
It is the closest thing to a constant (axiom?) we have.

Not really, the closest thing to an Axiom we have is that fact Axioms exist.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
3. The speed of light is theoretical.
No. Only relative (within a margin of error).

The degree of error is what differentiates theory and non-theory, and this "error" is merely an observation between abstract and empirical phenomena with these phenomena in turn being differentiations.

Because this "symmetry" is what fundamentally gives definition an inherent form of approximation always occurs in the face of perpetual variation. For example arithmetic may be proven as true in the face of dividing a grapefruit in half. The arithmetic is justified by the division of the grapefruit. The grapefruit is justified by the arithmetic.

However the division of the grapefruit in half is really an approximation of (1/2) = .5 and 2(each piece becomes one in itself) as the actual grapefruit itself is never really observed fully in a "halved/doubled" state. Hence this leads us to it justifying infinitesimals, with the infinitesimals in turn justifying how the grapefruit is observed. Etc.

Relativity requires a constant state of particulation between one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon and in itself is effectively a process of individuation through inversion, in which one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon inverts to many with these many, existing in one in themselves, inverting back to one.

This projective nature of atomic factual/empirical phenomenon, with "atomic" being synonymous to "particle", "part", "locality" and a myriad of other words and definitions subject to this same progressive linear nature, necessitates a form of axiomization in itself where the root foundation of "self-evidence" is premised in the defining characteristics of linearism.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:00 pm
Save your quasi religious belief in physics.
You are just pointing out all of the problems we already know about.

Any ideas how to fix them? ;)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:21 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:08 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:11 pm

Why do you insist on absolutes/completeness?

Because relativity is an absolute truth leading to a contradiction in terms where both absolute truth and relativistic truth exist simultaneously in perceived opposition.


It is the closest thing to a constant (axiom?) we have.

Not really, the closest thing to an Axiom we have is that fact Axioms exist.




No. Only relative (within a margin of error).

The degree of error is what differentiates theory and non-theory, and this "error" is merely an observation between abstract and empirical phenomena with these phenomena in turn being differentiations.

Because this "symmetry" is what fundamentally gives definition an inherent form of approximation always occurs in the face of perpetual variation. For example arithmetic may be proven as true in the face of dividing a grapefruit in half. The arithmetic is justified by the division of the grapefruit. The grapefruit is justified by the arithmetic.

However the division of the grapefruit in half is really an approximation of (1/2) = .5 and 2(each piece becomes one in itself) as the actual grapefruit itself is never really observed fully in a "halved/doubled" state. Hence this leads us to it justifying infinitesimals, with the infinitesimals in turn justifying how the grapefruit is observed. Etc.

Relativity requires a constant state of particulation between one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon and in itself is effectively a process of individuation through inversion, in which one atomic factual/empirical phenomenon inverts to many with these many, existing in one in themselves, inverting back to one.

This projective nature of atomic factual/empirical phenomenon, with "atomic" being synonymous to "particle", "part", "locality" and a myriad of other words and definitions subject to this same progressive linear nature, necessitates a form of axiomization in itself where the root foundation of "self-evidence" is premised in the defining characteristics of linearism.




You are just pointing out all of the problems we already know about.

Any ideas how to fix them? ;)
A reevaluation of the sciences/maths/psychology/etc. where they are effectively broken down...destroyed and reformed into a new set of universal principles premised on an inherent nature of "directed-movement".

The circulatory nature of all phenomena will enable a form of synthesis to occur between paradoxes within maths/sciences, enabling a further progress, as well as setting a rational base for the Golden Rule as a foundational axiom for psychology/spirituality that sets the standard for not just practical observations where everyone is responsible for both there own and other's actions, but gives an intuitive-spiritual theological base through which to act.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
A reevaluation of the sciences/maths/psychology/etc. where they are effectively broken down...destroyed and reformed into a new set of universal principles premised on an inherent nature of "directed-movement".
And? Is that good or bad?

Why?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
The circulatory nature of all phenomena will enable a form of synthesis to occur between paradoxes within maths/sciences, enabling a further progress, as well as setting a rational base for the Golden Rule as a foundational axiom for psychology/spirituality that sets the standard for not just practical observations where everyone is responsible for both there own and other's actions, but gives an intuitive-spiritual theological base through which to act.
We already have a framework which tells us how to act. All you have to provide as input is what you want.

Personally, I don't think there is any such thing as "rationality of thought". Only rationality of action.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:00 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
A reevaluation of the sciences/maths/psychology/etc. where they are effectively broken down...destroyed and reformed into a new set of universal principles premised on an inherent nature of "directed-movement".
And? Is that good or bad?

Why?

It necessitates a form of equilibrium by negating the continually fractating nature of language/sciences/religions and moving them towards a more unified state.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
The circulatory nature of all phenomena will enable a form of synthesis to occur between paradoxes within maths/sciences, enabling a further progress, as well as setting a rational base for the Golden Rule as a foundational axiom for psychology/spirituality that sets the standard for not just practical observations where everyone is responsible for both there own and other's actions, but gives an intuitive-spiritual theological base through which to act.
We already have a framework which tells us how to act. All you have to provide as input is what you want.

Personally, I don't think there is any such thing as "rationality of thought". Only rationality of action.
Thought leads to action, which leads to thought, with all thought being composed of action existing as action in itself. Thought is an action, as the repetition of certain axioms (concept, image, etc.) leads to a physicalization of some abstraction into action.

Mankind cannot create a framework telling him how to act because it would be equivocably equal to doing what our ancestors did and creating a wooden "doll" expecting it to give us guidance.

The modern movement towards technology is an advanced and more complex form of idolatry.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:00 pm
It necessitates a form of equilibrium by negating the continually fractating nature of language/sciences/religions and moving them towards a more unified state.
You do recognise that axioms are language, right? And that any symbol written on paper can and will be mis-interpreted?

This is the problem philosophy has tried (and failed) to solve. Infinite interpretations. Symbols do not and cannot convey meaning.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
Thought leads to action, which leads to thought, with all thought being composed of action existing as action in itself. Thought is an action, as the repetition of certain axioms (concept, image, etc.) leads to a physicalization of some abstraction into action.
Yes. Abstractions like desire, love, passion, goodness.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
Mankind cannot create a framework telling him how to act because it would be equivocably equal to doing what our ancestors did and creating a wooden "doll" expecting it to give us guidance.
If Mankind can't then who will?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
The modern movement towards technology is an advanced and more complex form of idolatry.[/color]
What's idolatry is mistaking the tools for idea.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:02 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:00 pm
It necessitates a form of equilibrium by negating the continually fractating nature of language/sciences/religions and moving them towards a more unified state.
You do recognise that axioms are language, right? And that any symbol written on paper can and will be mis-interpreted?

This is the problem philosophy has tried (and failed) to solve. Infinite interpretations. Symbols do not and cannot convey meaning.

All symbols are medial points to further symbols, and the question of language as continually self-referencing necessitates language to describe language, but this descriptive capacity of language is not limited to language itself considering its progressive and circulatory natures constitutes it as a form of "movement". Language, as symbolic, necessitates all "being" paradoxically existing as an active form of dialogue in the respect its "medial" nature applies to all being as having some center-point of existence.

Now while this may be described through language, and this "reality" existing in a manner which defines language, the common bond is one of a "directive" capacity and we are left with geometric symbols having a foundational capacity in language in both the abstract nature in which they move through each other was well as the premises of the symbols themselves as being composed of curves and lines.

This nature of "limit", which composes language, in turn sets a foundation for all symbolism in basic geometric axioms of the point, line, circle and as such set the premise for a unified triadic symbolism through which not just language but the phenomenon of being itself, as a language, exists.


Some of these premises reference back to intuitionistic logic, but very loosely, and as such must be referenced and expounded upon.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
Thought leads to action, which leads to thought, with all thought being composed of action existing as action in itself. Thought is an action, as the repetition of certain axioms (concept, image, etc.) leads to a physicalization of some abstraction into action.
Yes. Abstractions like desire, love, passion, goodness.

Yes, but also physical phenomenon, due to there transitory nature in time are relegated to existing as abstractions in memory. the orange observed in one second, is not the same orange in another, however memory acts as a less degree of change that embodies the infinite empirical change present in the moment.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
Mankind cannot create a framework telling him how to act because it would be equivocably equal to doing what our ancestors did and creating a wooden "doll" expecting it to give us guidance.
If Mankind can't then who will?

Mankind cannot create a framework telling him how to act, as this would be a framework in itself and we are left with a relativistic dichotomy, dependent upon time, between which came first "framework" or "man"? This is still a deeply engrained philosophical problem as the definition of what consitutes man becomes more complex, but paradoxically simplied under a socratic notion as "one who reflects" (loosely quoted).

The question of mankind and "Divinity" comes into being from this point forward.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:46 pm
The modern movement towards technology is an advanced and more complex form of idolatry.[/color]
What's idolatry is mistaking the tools for idea.

Ideas are inevitable, with any pragmatic or materialistic notion of reality still dependent upon some grade of abstraction, hence we are left with grades of idea. No, I think idolatry effective exists as where one localizes some facet of "everything" and makes it a relativistic pin-point for not just explaining everything but through which one is raised to a more unified state of being. All moral, religious, ethical, etc. (we are dealing with the fragmentary nature of language at this point) are premised on unity as order through a state of full being.


surreptitious57
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:56 am

Logic wrote:
any symbol written on paper can and will be mis interpreted
Symbols are a sub set of language and like any language they can be open to misinterpretation but the symbols
of mathematics are very rigorous indeed and much moreso than those of non mathemathical language [ words ]

I think the symbol grounding problem is more a question for philosophy not mathematics or science for it is
fundamentally metaphysical and metaphysics has got absolutely nothing to do with mathematics or science

Would machine intelligence of the future be capable of solving the problem if it is beyond human capability ?
It would certainly have superior processing capability however would that automatically produce an answer ?

Scientists and mathematicians have no problem in conveying their ideas using mathematical language so will
carry on doing so because the solution to the symbol grounding problem is not something that concerns them

But what guarantee is there that the problem itself will not be open to misinterpretation if it is ever solved ?
The symbols themselves are not actually that important since like words it is the meaning that really matters

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests