Information encoded on Black hole horizons is a mindnumbingly stupid idea

[uwot]

Actually that is the problem you begin with "let's break it down" but there is no methodology to do this except start defining beginning points by continually dividing them. The beginning points are random.

We can break down physics in many different ways, and the ways to do this are pulled out of thin air.

They really are not. As above, physics has three core constituents:
1. Observation.
2. Analysis.
3. Hypothesis.
1 and 2 are critical. If you are not looking at the real world and trying to analyse it mathematically, you're not doing physics.
3 is not essential. You can do 1 and 2 perfectly well in the absence of any hypothesis, but it is the hypotheses that get the headlines. The more outrageous the hypothesis, the bigger the headline, and the more armchair philosophers are outraged. Some then feel compelled to bluster on philosophy forums that physicists don't know what they are talking about, and/or are involved in a conspiracy to suppress some batshit theory or other. This, as likely as not, will be presented as the Truth. Or even the TRUTH. The general rule is that the more capitals, the more bonkers the writer. There's a similar relationship between the claimed IQ and the degree of fruitloopery.

[Atla]

You see, this is perfect example of how you convince yourself you win a debate.

I ask in one thread the question: "Is connection physical or abstract?"

In this thread I provide a question, tied into that dilemma, as well as an answer.


You just shut up and say "nonsense" when someone makes a point you can't answer...its repetitive delusion.

So I will ask again, as this question applies perfectly to this thread:

Is "connection" an abstraction or physical mode of being?

And as I said, this is too dull for me.

I already told you about 17 times that you don't understand what abstract means. If you would, you wouldn't ask such a nonsensical question.

I've been telling you this for years, but your brain can't process what it can't process.

If it is too dull for you than you would have no problem explaining it...but you can't:


No atla... you dont know what you are talking about. You are just making up garbage at this point.

I provided a definition above as to what abstraction is.



If "connection" is an abstraction then you are left with a problem of determining how physical phenomenon connect.

If "connection" is a physical mode of being then you are left with a problem of determining how abstract phenomenon connect.

If you say connection is both physical and abstract then it kills the distinction between abstract and physical and you are left eating your own words.

Again: you don't understand what abstract means. There are no abstract phenomenon. Most of your philosophy is based on such cognitive illusions/hallucinations, it's simply psychotic.

I've been explaining to you since years, and all you do is lie about it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually that is the problem you begin with "let's break it down" but there is no methodology to do this except start defining beginning points by continually dividing them. The beginning points are random.

We can break down physics in many different ways, and the ways to do this are pulled out of thin air.

They really are not. As above, physics has three core constituents:
1. Observation.
2. Analysis.
3. Hypothesis.
1 and 2 are critical. If you are not looking at the real world and trying to analyse it mathematically, you're not doing physics.
3 is not essential. You can do 1 and 2 perfectly well in the absence of any hypothesis, but it is the hypotheses that get the headlines. The more outrageous the hypothesis, the bigger the headline, and the more armchair philosophers are outraged. Some then feel compelled to bluster on philosophy forums that physicists don't know what they are talking about, and/or are involved in a conspiracy to suppress some batshit theory or other. This, as likely as not, will be presented as the Truth. Or even the TRUTH. The general rule is that the more capitals, the more bonkers the writer. There's a similar relationship between the claimed IQ and the degree of fruitloopery.

I am not trying to disagree with you, for the sake of disagreeing with you...I want to start with that.

These three component of physics, are strictly a reduction of one general into many. The general is physics in this case. However there are no rules for how reduction is done....it just is done.

Observation, analysis and hypothesis can be argued as not just intertwined and circular, but defined in a myriad of ways...with no rules as to this process of divergence.

I could easily argue that physics is:

Measurement/Induction/Deduction of physical phenomenon
Interpretation/Testing/Recycling of physical phenomenon
Definition/Application of Definition/Alignment of Definitions
Etc.

That is the problem, analysis creates categories as much as breaking things down as their are an infinite number of ways a thing can be broken down because there are no rules to do it except the act itself.

For example I can cut an orange into a variety of different slices...there is no proper way to do it than actual orange being divided. Even if I say divided it into three slices...again an infinite number of ways to do it.

The problem with analysis is that when it is premised as the means to determine truth, considering there are so many ways to anaylze....it actually creates truths and these truths can be reformed again and again.

Analysis is no different than art.

[Eodnhoj7]

And as I said, this is too dull for me.

I already told you about 17 times that you don't understand what abstract means. If you would, you wouldn't ask such a nonsensical question.

I've been telling you this for years, but your brain can't process what it can't process.

If it is too dull for you than you would have no problem explaining it...but you can't:


No atla... you dont know what you are talking about. You are just making up garbage at this point.

I provided a definition above as to what abstraction is.



If "connection" is an abstraction then you are left with a problem of determining how physical phenomenon connect.

If "connection" is a physical mode of being then you are left with a problem of determining how abstract phenomenon connect.

If you say connection is both physical and abstract then it kills the distinction between abstract and physical and you are left eating your own words.

Again: you don't understand what abstract means. There are no abstract phenomenon. Most of your philosophy is based on such cognitive illusions/hallucinations, it's simply psychotic.

I've been explaining to you since years, and all you do is lie about it.

Still ignoring the question, it is nonsensical because your stance is contradictory.

As to the other points?

Really...because phenomenon is an abstraction...point to "phenomenon" using the senses.

Define abstraction, since you know so much.

[uwot]

I am not trying to disagree with you, for the sake of disagreeing with you...I want to start with that.

I fully accept that. There's others here who will do that for you.

These three component of physics, are strictly a reduction of one general into many. The general is physics in this case. However there are no rules for how reduction is done....it just is done.

I think this is where we differ. It seems to me you are arguing that there is some coherent entity, physics, which is there to be divided up. In contrast, I agree that there are all sorts of human activities: observation, measurement, interpretation, definition, orange slicing, analysis, art and anything else that people get up to. Any of which can play some part in physics, but I think it is bottom up, rather than top down. It is the combination of activities which makes it physics, and without observation and analysis, it just ain't physics.

Analysis is no different than art.

Well, having studied both art and physics, my experience is that hypothesis has more in common with art than analysis. Analysis is rigorous rather than creative, more like life drawing or practising scales. It's basically giving yourself the tools to make something new.

[Atla]

Still ignoring the question, it is nonsensical because your stance is contradictory.

As to the other points?

Really...because phenomenon is an abstraction...point to "phenomenon" using the senses.

Define abstraction, since you know so much.

An abstraction has no physical referent, it's a concept and nothing more. Like forms, conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points, information.
My stance isn't nonsensical, it isn't contradictory, it's how the world as we know it, works.
You see a contradiction because, as I said, for some reason you can't process the concrete-abstract distinction.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am not trying to disagree with you, for the sake of disagreeing with you...I want to start with that.

I fully accept that. There's others here who will do that for you.

These three component of physics, are strictly a reduction of one general into many. The general is physics in this case. However there are no rules for how reduction is done....it just is done.

I think this is where we differ. It seems to me you are arguing that there is some coherent entity, physics, which is there to be divided up. In contrast, I agree that there are all sorts of human activities: observation, measurement, interpretation, definition, orange slicing, analysis, art and anything else that people get up to. Any of which can play some part in physics, but I think it is bottom up, rather than top down. It is the combination of activities which makes it physics, and without observation and analysis, it just ain't physics.

That's the thing what is the difference between analysis and observation?

When I observe something, I seperate it from an intrinsic background of some form. We see this with the particle field dualism. Any act of assuming reality through the senses results in an inherent localization of it as a particle. This happens within physics as the atom. This occurs in the rest of reality as the atomic fact.

To differ observation from analysis has some place considering observation has many dimensions to it, but analysis is just an element of observation. If would be like saying the observation of observation is analysis: (O-->O)-->A

Analysis is no different than art.

Well, having studied both art and physics, my experience is that hypothesis has more in common with art than analysis. Analysis is rigorous rather than creative, more like life drawing or practising scales. It's basically giving yourself the tools to make something new.

Analysis may be more rigorous, in the sense it is through, but it still relies upon a hypothesis as a starting point and there can me infinite number of hypothesis. Even taking infinity out of the equation and saying there is a finite number to choose from we are still left with an inherent element of randomness you cannot account for in the decision making process.

The origins of analysis are pulled out of thin air.

[Eodnhoj7]

Still ignoring the question, it is nonsensical because your stance is contradictory.

As to the other points?

Really...because phenomenon is an abstraction...point to "phenomenon" using the senses.

Define abstraction, since you know so much.

An abstraction has no physical referent, it's a concept and nothing more. Like forms, conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points, information.

An abstraction has no physical referent. Is a "referent" or "reference" an abstraction or a physical mode of being?

So no physical phenomenon is subject to form? One cannot form a piece of clay from an abstraction.

That is where your argument is bias and subject to contradiction.

You start it out as conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points when nonconceptual circles, nonconceptual lines, and nonconceptual points exist as well.

(C)--->(F)
(NC)--->(F)

When in reality form is the linchpin word upon which both conceptual and non-conceptual being manifests.

(F)--->(C,NC)


Form is empirical through the senses, it is abstract as well.




My stance isn't nonsensical, it isn't contradictory, it's how the world as we know it, works.

Actually that is the contradiction. The world as how we know it works, is an abstraction considering the present empirical nature of "now" has specific limits set to it where we are left with memories and images of the past to compare it to. Considering certain patterns replicate within the future as well as the past, one can argue that we are also building the present off the future, but considering it still requires non empirical images we are left with abstractions.


You see a contradiction because, as I said, for some reason you can't process the concrete-abstract distinction.

"Because for some reason", your own words, necessitates there is a rational reason why I state this.


You cannot answer this one question and you keep avoiding it:

Is "connection" an abstraction or physical?


I mean I asked it multiple times already, and you literally avoid it and say it is nonsensical....when it really isn't. Is "connection" an abstraction or a physical mode of being?

[Atla]

An abstraction has no physical referent, it's a concept and nothing more. Like forms, conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points, information.

An abstraction has no physical referent. Is a "referent" or "reference" an abstraction or a physical mode of being?

So no physical phenomenon is subject to form? One cannot form a piece of clay from an abstraction.

That is where your argument is bias and subject to contradiction.

You start it out as conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points when nonconceptual circles, nonconceptual lines, and nonconceptual points exist as well.
...

That's correct, no physical phenomenon is subject to form. There are no actual nonconceptual circles, lines, points.
Take a nonconceptual point for example, it's a 4 dimensional smudge of ink, usually.

[Eodnhoj7]

An abstraction has no physical referent, it's a concept and nothing more. Like forms, conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points, information.

An abstraction has no physical referent. Is a "referent" or "reference" an abstraction or a physical mode of being?

So no physical phenomenon is subject to form? One cannot form a piece of clay from an abstraction.

That is where your argument is bias and subject to contradiction.

You start it out as conceptual circles, conceptual lines, conceptual points when nonconceptual circles, nonconceptual lines, and nonconceptual points exist as well.
...

That's correct, no physical phenomenon is subject to form. There are no actual nonconceptual circles, lines, points.
So the repetition of spirals and branching movements in nature are not the repitition of the same form through variations? ROFL! IDIOT....

You do realize that non-conceptual is a concept right? You cannot see "non-concept", as it is a category, thus in trying to negate the distinction between abstraction and physicality you created another connection between them.

So when a person is drawing a line circle or point, they are not creating an approximation?

Take a nonconceptual point for example, it's a 4 dimensional smudge of ink, usually.

No it's not...4 dimensional is an abstraction...you cannot point and see 4 dimensions with the senses.

And that non conceptual smudge of ink is made of x,y,a until we are left with 99.9999...% empty atoms...spheres. The sphere is just a form. The atoms as primarily empty as just forms.

You also have the particle wave dualism where the particles/waves are just forms at there most basic level.

ROFL!!!! Please stay....your distinctions are a joke.

[Atla]

So the repetition of spirals and branching movements in nature are not the repitition of the same form through variations? ROFL! IDIOT....
...

Of course they aren't "repetitions of a form", they are merely similar large-scale behaviour.
Maybe don't call others idiots when it's you who is hallucinating.

[Eodnhoj7]

So the repetition of spirals and branching movements in nature are not the repitition of the same form through variations? ROFL! IDIOT....
...

Of course they aren't "repetitions of a form", they are merely similar large-scale behaviour.
Maybe don't call others idiots when it's you who is hallucinating.

Actually all behavior is form. If I drive a car in circles in a parking lot, from a different timezone all of those movements take the form of a circle. The car's movements are summited in a form. The same occurs with the car itself. It is composed of myriad of atoms whose movements result in a larger form (the parts of the car, as well as the car itself).



You keep avoiding the question, this has to be the fifth time.

Is "connection" physical or is it an abstraction?

[Atla]

Actually all behavior is form. If I drive a car in circles in a parking lot, from a different timezone all of those movements take the form of a circle.

Behaviour isn't form, and no car ever goes in a perfect circle. And even if it would go in a perfect circle, there still wouldn't be an actual circle there. You are hallucinating.

You keep avoiding the question, this has to be the fifth time.

Is "connection" physical or is it an abstraction?

Nonsensical question. You mean the "connection" between the abstract and the concrete, but you can't actually connect something that isn't there.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually all behavior is form. If I drive a car in circles in a parking lot, from a different timezone all of those movements take the form of a circle.

Behaviour isn't form, and no car ever goes in a perfect circle.
Redhering, I said "circle" not "perfect circle". And yes behavior is form. Look up the word behavior and you will find it begins with "the way...xxx" or some proxy term.

All "ways" are forms by nature, no different than a simple path is a form.

And even if it would go in a perfect circle, there still wouldn't be an actual circle there. You are hallucinating.

False, from a non-dual perspective there is as one can see all its movements summed up in one moment where it forms a circle or loop.

You keep avoiding the question, this has to be the fifth time.

Is "connection" physical or is it an abstraction?

Nonsensical question. You mean the "connection" between the abstract and the concrete, but you can't actually connect something that isn't there.

No, you are avoiding the question. Is "connection" an abstraction or is it physical?

[Atla]

Redhering, I said "circle" not "perfect circle". And yes behavior is form. Look up the word behavior and you will find it begins with "the way...xxx" or some proxy term.

All "ways" are forms by nature, no different than a simple path is a form.

Here you are using "behaviour" and "way" as abstractions too, so you said exactly nothing about the concrete.

False, from a non-dual perspective there is as one can see all its movements summed up in one moment where it forms a circle or loop.

No it doesn't, this only showcases your inability to think in 4 dimensions. And nondualism has nothing to do with it.

No, you are avoiding the question. Is "connection" an abstraction or is it physical?

Just "connection" itself? That totally depends on context then, so it's a nonsensical question. Which you would understand if you understood the abstract-concrete distinction.

I'm off