Actually it turns out metaphysical speculation is stupid, and this has all been a huge waste of time.

[Eodnhoj7]

But this point is important:

When you pre-suppose that one OUGHT to be able to "prove truth". Or that one OUGHT to be able to axiomatically justify things, or one OUGGHT to avoid regressive arguments. You have already imposed limits on yourself!

Godel has already shown us that "truth" is a higher notion than "proof"!

A false OUGHT is worse than a false IS! It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Im short terms, Godels argument is a proof about the progressively circular nature of proof. Proof exists as is hence is foundation within the law of identity.

This law of identity is also tri-fold

1) P
2) PpP (with p being equality, is, or any other set of symbols of relation)
3) Pp

Prediction also qualifies as a self fulfilling prophecy.

[TimeSeeker]

Prediction also qualifies as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Naturally. That's the teleology of models

The distinction is that it's a conscious choice. Whereas adhering to the law of non-contradiction is subconsciously bowing to a man-made authority.

Given that we accept the fact that human knowledge is imperfect and incomplete - then to expect non-contradiction is to expect perfection.

Now THAT is a contradictory expectation! e.g contradiction in ACTION not in WORDS.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Eodnhoj7]

The munchaussen trillema is relativistic and false, it contradicts itself.

So you already interpret contradiction as an undesirable property? In constructivist mathematics it's just an error.
It is possible for a model(argument) to be useful despite errors e.g edge cases/corner cases. That is how scientific theories work.

Always WITHIN their domain of applicability. That is - you cannot escape context in any interpretation of results.

Contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure, as all contradiction a founded in rational foundations.

All axioms maintain a dual contradictory nature when viewed relative to other axioms in the respect the axiom is strictly a locality composed of and composing further axioms.

The axiom, however is a constant extension of truth in its ability to maintain itself as itself, thus necessitating a form of circularity as one axiom exists through another with both being the same.

An axiom, as both an individual axiom and set of axioms, must be self-maintaining and not dissolve under its own form and function.

The Munchhausen trillema, as a negative boundary to what constitutes "truth" (in the respect it does not provide a positive foundation except through negation) cannot sustain itself under its own terms without going into a circular progress regressive with this itself giving no foundation for axioms. This negative can only exist in relation to a postive as what is negative cannot exist without a positive.

As a continual negation in one respect, the law dually negates itself in a manner leaving a positive foundation for truth with circularity as maintainance/dissolution, progressive linearism ad-infinitum as definition through connection/seperation, and the axiom as merely a point of inversion resulting in further axioms with the axiom as inversive necessitating it as both "void" and "everything".
****I may have to explain the above.

Contradiction as deficiency in structure, observes a basic degree of relation in one respect, but in a seperate respect because of this relation points to an inherent connection in all axioms where contradiction observes a mere approximation of truth.

1) It claims all arguments are circular, where theory and proof support eachother but the nature of it claiming all arguments are regressive ad infinitum and base upon axioms results in the same form and function of circularity.

It fails to draw distinction between circularity and recursion. Recursion leading towards convergence. Convergence towards the end goal e.g the teleology.

I would have to agree with this point, but if the Munchhausen Trillema as an Axiom is inverted it necessitates Recursion/Repetition (I call it mirroring because it applies to models in psychology as well...we are dealing with linguistic entropy as a problem here). Recursion/Repetition observes a form of circularity through linear alternation and in these respects circularity and linear progression results as one and the same if the circle maintains itself through a relativistic expansion. We can see this when looking up definitions in a dictionary where these definitions follow an expanding circle.

The problem of telelogy as "the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=teleology ... F587198702

observes service as a form of cause in itself where explanation is caused effectively by service; hence the nature of causality cannot be avoided but rather be defined strictly as "structure" considering the observation of a cause, where "A leads to B leads to C" as "Z" with "Z" following the same form and function as "A,B,C" is an observation of complex limits/Structure.

Service is defined by complex limit / structure, as all service is a form of complex limit / structure which effectively encapsulate a need or "void" in being.

2) It claims all arguments are infinitely regressive, which necessitates this fallacy is incomplete and hence contradictory as it is an argument. No constant definition of axiom can be interpreted from it due to the fact the definition of axiom must also regress. The munchaussen trillema must continually expand, as observed in its multiple interpretations leading it subject to other fallacies such as equivocation, red herring, etc.

Yes. Arguments in words are circular because of the symbol-grounding problem.
Arguments in action are not. Actions have measurable effect on reality - words do not.

Words form reality considering the nature of technology is dependent upon programming...which is just language. All words are a degree of action in themselves, not always limited to an empirical nature, where they form or disassemble ideas resulting in the ideas cycling to actions in themselvse. Abstraction and empiricality cannot be seperates as all actions are formed from ideas, even ones as simple as "this feeling is good", and all ideas are formed from ideas. In these respects a unification between thought, emotion, and action is necessary for the individual and society where this unity gives a sense of structure as "integrity".

All empirical actions have a structural element to them as cause and effect where action A leads to action B, with B being an extension of A. All actions have a circular nature to them in these respects as a repetition of structure.

For example one may eat a sandwhich and the effect is some form of nourishment. The sandwhich as one form repeats itself through the body in a seperate form, with the base qualities of the sandwhich (such as nutrients and properties of these nutrients) remaining the constant median across A and B. The sandwhich, as an axiom inverts from a unified state to a state of multiplicity with the multiplicity turning to a unity (reabsorbed in the body) showing a deeper form of circularity with the cause and effect paradigm.

Prediction is an understanding of something's nature, or the limits and complex limits which compose it, hence while aligned with human expectation in the respect subjectivity is inherent within human nature, is still dependent upon "nature" with "human" being a modality in this respect.

Sure, and that is one of those inescapable limits of our hardware/wetware. Make lemonade...

[Eodnhoj7]

Prediction also qualifies as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Naturally. That's the teleology of models

The distinction is that it's a conscious choice. Whereas adhering to the law of non-contradiction is subconsciously bowing to a man-made authority.

Given that we accept the fact that human knowledge is imperfect and incomplete - then to expect non-contradiction is to expect perfection.

Now THAT is a contradictory expectation! e.g contradiction in ACTION not in WORDS.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

A conscious choice is merely a point of inversion where one thought/feeling/action is changed into another or maintained as is by inverting an form of adversity.

Lol...yeah we are on the same page in regards to the law of non-contradiction. I would stem even further and argue, and I will argue eventually when I have the time that all fallacies are contradictory leaving us with truth statements in "being" through logic.

The problem occurs if we accept human knowledge as imperfect and incomplete, we are left with a perfect and complete statement about the human condition meaning we know something that is universal that extends through all being.


All being, good or bad, is perfect relative to nothing and the question of perfection is merely a statement of relation which necessitates perfection as imperfect in its own right.

[TimeSeeker]

The problem occurs if we accept human knowledge as imperfect and incomplete, we are left with a perfect and complete statement about the human condition meaning we know something that is universal that extends through all being.

That one, short statement is sufficient. And it takes a good few decades for one to accept/understand what it means - so I think it's par for the course

Until such time as one can learn to think for themselves - the law of non-contradiction is a good mechanism to catch oneself making errors in judgment.

[Eodnhoj7]

The problem occurs if we accept human knowledge as imperfect and incomplete, we are left with a perfect and complete statement about the human condition meaning we know something that is universal that extends through all being.

That one, short statement is sufficient. And it takes a good few decades for one to accept/understand what it means - so I think it's par for the course

Until such time as one can learn to think for themselves - the law of non-contradiction is a good mechanism to catch oneself making errors in judgment.

Lol...we all need training wheels until we can learn to ride a bike on our own...I would have to agree with you.

[Walker]

You're in for a surprise when that thread title applies to your life.

[TimeSeeker]

You're in for a surprise when that thread title applies to your life.

Already there. Metaphysically - what is time?

[Walker]

Fortunately it doesn't always end there.

Equanimity, a broader concept than detachment, makes the phrase, “I’ve seen all I need to see,” one of simple, non-judgmental fact.

Seeing the old under new conditions is itself a new condition, rather than repetition of old memories. The resolution of the paradox of why live is that one has not actually lived everything.

How? Logically, although in nature entropy swallows whole the tidy concept of butterfly effect, the energetic nature of life makes every moment sui generis, i.e., a moment of creation. When life is involved with a situation, and it always is because the knowing of the situation requires perception and thinking which are life-dependent, then entropy is negated by the Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe, which was recently referenced in the growingly popular Sri Nisargadatta thread.

[Impenitent]

speculated physically, a huge waist needs huge suspenders any time

-Imp

[TimeSeeker]

The resolution of the paradox of why live?

Because I concluded that nihilism was the logical conclusion of life and then I was free to choose living anyway

Death is boring.

[Eodnhoj7]

Maybe the question of "why" live is better put as "nature of life?" with the question observing who/what/when/where/how/why.

This is considering why only emphasizes a reason or structure as origin.

[Atla]

Thales: Everything is Water
Heraclitus: Everything is Fire
Democritus: Everything is Atoms
Plato: Everything is Forms
Plotinus: Everything is the One
Averroes: Everything is Emanation
Descarte: Everything is Mind or Body
Spinoza: Everything is God
Berkeley: Everything is Ideas
Leibniz: Everything is Monads
Kant: Everything is Noumena

That's just a feature of dualistic thinking. We take reality (1) and come up with a substrate for reality (2). We make reality into a thing, but a thing is just an idea, and so we have distorted and duplicated reality in a way, without realizing. Even if the idea is just One/Oneness, we are still talking about a made-up substrate.

Most Western philosophers were stupid enough to go even further and set this nonsense in stone by coming up with substance theory and basing everything on it.

Which is why I keep saying: I think anyone who is good at metaphysics, has thrown out Western philosophy since the Greeks (in this respect), and has turned to pure nonmonistic nondualism.

[attofishpi]

Thales: Everything is Water
Heraclitus: Everything is Fire
Democritus: Everything is Atoms
Plato: Everything is Forms
Plotinus: Everything is the One
Averroes: Everything is Emanation
Descarte: Everything is Mind or Body
Spinoza: Everything is God
Berkeley: Everything is Ideas
Leibniz: Everything is Monads
Kant: Everything is Noumena

What about everything is close to 'nothing', beyond the sensation to the senses? Imagine all 'reality' that is sensed as matter, is just an impulse to ones consciousness. Perhaps the nearest thing to perfection of 'reality' for beings as entropy has forced an evolution to that very point of existence?

[TimeSeeker]

A similar conundrum took place in the world of AI research in the early 90s'.

Most AI researchers up to this point insisted on storing a "map" of reality in the AI's memory as a way of "remembering" where in the world the robot is.

If robot walked 1 meter forward - robot's internal map was updated to reflect its new position on the map.
Or if the robot was to perform a multi-step movement it had to "plan" 5 or 6 steps ahead while taking into consideration all the things that COULD go wrong. Multi-step planning was like playing chess.

Except when it wasn't. Because even though it may have intended to take 1 meter step, it only took a 98cm step (because the floor is slippery), or because you lifted it off the ground. Eventually the robot's internal state of "where it is in reality" became misaligned with where it actually was and even though it knew how to handle SOME contingencies, it had no clue how to deal with unexpected scenarios (like when its internal state no longer represents reality). Robots couldn't "think on their feet" as we say and they couldn't deal with unexpected external events. Chess has rules (limits) to what is a "valid move" - reality doesn't.

So now the focus is on real-time information-processing and orientation. Once you have a map of the "world" in memory - you orient/calibrate yourself using landmark recognition. If you think you are lost - take a reading. Calibrate yourself.
Once you have a goal set, algorithms can help you work towards that goal even if you encounter unexpected circumstances. It just creates a sub-goal: get back on track!

You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_AI
The original paper was called "Elephants don't play chess" - which is to signify that real-time decision-making is cheaper/easier than long-term planning given all the variables in a complex world.

In practice it's a space-time trade-off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff
You need less space (memory) to represent reality - but you need more time for calibration and effective decision-making.