And you have one, lol?
If reality is beyond the senses, due to the paradoxical nature of the senses, then I have an absolute footing not dependent on anything doubtable.
And you have one, lol?
1. Something is an individual thus a relative whole.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:54 pmIn saying everything we summate as a whole.
In saying something we summate as plurality.
Intriguing, systems theory? Everything is a system even the parts of a system's whole are wholes.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:35 am1. Something is an individual thus a relative whole.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:54 pmIn saying everything we summate as a whole.
In saying something we summate as plurality.
2. Everything is a relation of individuals thus relative parts.
Dually:
1. "Everything" is a 'summation' thus a "something" (as a 'summation' is something).
2. "Something" means anything thus "everything" (as 'anything' is everything).
I think a thing could be defined as an object and/or conceivably substance, out of substance comes all.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:38 pm I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?
I should ask what a "substance" is but I don't want to steer this too much off-topic. Many people refer to something physical or mental when referring to substances. Does this mean that there are physical things and mental things? Does "everything" refer to all physical and mental objects?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:51 pmI think a thing could be defined as an object and/or conceivably substance, out of substance comes all.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:38 pm I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?
I would say that substance is conditions before manifestation, including all elements of the periodic table or the energies that comprise them. If you wish a greater understanding of substance, I suggest reading Spinoza. There are no mental objects. There is the brain and its processes of representation which are subjective processes----winging it here. All means of representation meaning the cognitive processes are the energies of chemical substances or the energies that constitute them. "What is the difference between every and some." I believe it is the difference between an arrangement pattern. Every and some dragons would indicate a pattern was manifest.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:23 pmI should ask what a "substance" is but I don't want to steer this too much off-topic. Many people refer to something physical or mental when referring to substances. Does this mean that there are physical things and mental things? Does "everything" refer to all physical and mental objects?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:51 pmI think a thing could be defined as an object and/or conceivably substance, out of substance comes all.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:38 pm I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?
What is the difference between every cat and some cats? What about every dragon and some dragons?
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:32 pmI would say that substance is conditions before manifestation, including all elements of the periodic table or the energies that comprise them. If you wish a greater understanding of substance, I suggest reading Spinoza. There are no mental objects. There is the brain and its processes of representation which are subjective processes----winging it here. All means of representation meaning the cognitive processes are the energies of chemical substances or the energies that constitute them. "What is the difference between every and some." I believe it is the difference between an arrangement and pattern. Every and some dragons would indicate a pattern was manifest.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:23 pmI should ask what a "substance" is but I don't want to steer this too much off-topic. Many people refer to something physical or mental when referring to substances. Does this mean that there are physical things and mental things? Does "everything" refer to all physical and mental objects?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:51 pm
I think a thing could be defined as an object and/or conceivably substance, out of substance comes all.
What is the difference between every cat and some cats? What about every dragon and some dragons?
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 11:10 pmpopeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:32 pmI would say that substance is conditions before manifestation, including all elements of the periodic table or the energies that comprise them. If you wish a greater understanding of substance, I suggest reading Spinoza. There are no mental objects. There is the brain and its processes of representation which are subjective processes----winging it here. All means of representation meaning the cognitive processes are the energies of chemical substances or the energies that constitute them. "What is the difference between every and some." I believe it is the difference between an arrangement and pattern. Every dragon and some dragons would indicate a pattern was manifest, repetition of a particular arrangement.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:23 pm
I should ask what a "substance" is but I don't want to steer this too much off-topic. Many people refer to something physical or mental when referring to substances. Does this mean that there are physical things and mental things? Does "everything" refer to all physical and mental objects?
What is the difference between every cat and some cats? What about every dragon and some dragons?
Yep.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 3:26 amIntriguing, systems theory? Everything is a system even the parts of a system's whole are wholes.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:35 am1. Something is an individual thus a relative whole.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:54 pm
In saying everything we summate as a whole.
In saying something we summate as plurality.
2. Everything is a relation of individuals thus relative parts.
Dually:
1. "Everything" is a 'summation' thus a "something" (as a 'summation' is something).
2. "Something" means anything thus "everything" (as 'anything' is everything).
Or we can define "definition" and end in a non-sensical regressive looping.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:38 pm I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?
Just a thought, seeing as there is no such thing as a closed system, as far as we know not even the universe, then nothing is whole according to this perspective or rather, we cannot perceive the whole.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:31 pmYep.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 3:26 amIntriguing, systems theory? Everything is a system, even the parts of a system's whole are wholes.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:35 am
1. Something is an individual thus a relative whole.
2. Everything is a relation of individuals thus relative parts.
Dually:
1. "Everything" is a 'summation' thus a "something" (as a 'summation' is something).
2. "Something" means anything thus "everything" (as 'anything' is everything).
I fail to see how defining words leads to a non-sensical regressive looping. If that were so then language use would have been abandoned long ago, like some bird species have abandoned flight because their wings are useless for such activity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:32 pmOr we can define "definition" and end in a non-sensical regressive looping.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 4:38 pm I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?
The whole is without comparison, other wise it would not be the whole. Without comparison it is fundamentally no-thing as thingness requires contrast. The open system requires something beyond it through which to move thus the open system is not the whole. Being encapsulates itself.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 1:02 amJust a thought, seeing as there is no such thing as a closed system, as far as we know not even the universe, then nothing is whole according to this perspective or rather, we cannot perceive the whole.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:31 pmYep.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 3:26 am
Intriguing, systems theory? Everything is a system, even the parts of a system's whole are wholes.