One-way-street time vs circular time

[Eodnhoj7]

If they wield no power, not even that of definition, then do we really observe any law at all?

Laws themselves are abstractions, so they can't be observed.

So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.

[Atla]

If they wield no power, not even that of definition, then do we really observe any law at all?

Laws themselves are abstractions, so they can't be observed.

So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.

We use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinking

[Eodnhoj7]

Laws themselves are abstractions, so they can't be observed.

So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.

We use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinking

The laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.

Without abstraction we cannot observe physical law.

[Atla]

So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.

We use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinking

The laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.

Without abstraction we cannot observe physical law.

An abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.

You really can't make a distinction between your thoughts and physical objects?

[Eodnhoj7]

We use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinking

The laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.

Without abstraction we cannot observe physical law.

An abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.

You really can't make a distinction between your thoughts and physical objects?

How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?

[Atla]

The laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.

Without abstraction we cannot observe physical law.

An abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.

You really can't make a distinction between your thoughts and physical objects?

How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?

None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions, dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction, expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..

I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?

[Eodnhoj7]

An abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.

You really can't make a distinction between your thoughts and physical objects?

How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?

None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?

dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?

I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?

[Atla]

How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?

None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?

dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?

I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?

So everything is made of thoughts?

[Atla]

Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?

Of course the difference is that the image of the monitor in your head is constructed from sensory input about the actual monitor in front of you. So the actual monitor also exists independently of your thoughts.

Abstractions however are abstractions of other thoughts, so they don't directly refer to actual things out there. Mixing the two categories leads to nonsense. Even more nonsense happens when we start to believe in abstract realms, or that abstractions define reality.

Believing that all things are constructed from thoughts, is more like an epic Buddhist misunderstanding. Forms - also Buddhist stuff. I think it's better to unlearn 2400 year old psychologies first, the religion of the mind is very confused about the mind.

Self-reflecting points - also Buddhistic idea? Don't they have this view that the world is made of little crystals that reflect each other ad-infinitum. It's a fancy way of expressing interconnectedness, but reflection isn't literally happening. Technically humans are reflecting, there is a circularity in their head.

[Eodnhoj7]

Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?

Of course the difference is that the image of the monitor in your head is constructed from sensory input about the actual monitor in front of you. So the actual monitor also exists independently of your thoughts.

Was it that way when it was first invented or created? Was their a monitor there to look at?

Abstractions however are abstractions of other thoughts, so they don't directly refer to actual things out there. Mixing the two categories leads to nonsense. Even more nonsense happens when we start to believe in abstract realms, or that abstractions define reality.

So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?

Believing that all things are constructed from thoughts, is more like an epic Buddhist misunderstanding. Forms - also Buddhist stuff. I think it's better to unlearn 2400 year old psychologies first, the religion of the mind is very confused about the mind.
If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".

Self-reflecting points - also Buddhistic idea? Don't they have this view that the world is made of little crystals that reflect each other ad-infinitum. It's a fancy way of expressing interconnectedness, but reflection isn't literally happening. Technically humans are reflecting, there is a circularity in their head.

Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.


Circularity either leads to a holistic progress or contradictory regress. Even the fallacies of logic contradict themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?

dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?

I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?

So everything is made of thoughts?

First tell me what matter is.

[Atla]

Was it that way when it was first invented or created? Was their a monitor there to look at?

What does this supposed to mean? A monitor is there now, in front of you.

So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?

What does this supposed to mean? Binary logic is very useful, why would it be nonsense?

If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".

Yeah the same or similar nonsense was invented several times, but this is the 21st century now, time to move on.
And as a general philosophy, you seem to be a coward who hides in his head, in his ivory tower. Mind over matter pff.

Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.

I said several times that the laws you talk about are also abstractions.
It's your whole argument that's backwards and circular, you just don't see it yet.

Circularity either leads to a holistic progress or contradictory regress. Even the fallacies of logic contradict themselves.

Yes, your philosophy is a contradictory regress. We should avoid such traps with mental or abstract realms or whatever.

First tell me what matter is.

Matter is a Western philosophy substance. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, reality is made of something, because God made the world out of clay.
It is a hallucination, there are no substances, reality isn't really made of anything.

[Eodnhoj7]

Was it that way when it was first invented or created? Was their a monitor there to look at?

What does this supposed to mean? A monitor is there now, in front of you.

So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?

What does this supposed to mean? Binary logic is very useful, why would it be nonsense?
Because it is an abstraction, according to you a "pseudo-dualism" considering their are more value inputs than strictly 1 and 0.

If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".

Yeah the same or similar nonsense was invented several times, but this is the 21st century now, time to move on.
And as a general philosophy, you seem to be a coward who hides in his head, in his ivory tower. Mind over matter pff.
Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?

Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.

I said several times that the laws you talk about are also abstractions.
Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?
It's your whole argument that's backwards and circular, you just don't see it yet.
I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.

Circularity either leads to a holistic progress or contradictory regress. Even the fallacies of logic contradict themselves.

Yes, your philosophy is a contradictory regress. We should avoid such traps with mental or abstract realms or whatever.
But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?

First tell me what matter is.

Matter is a Western philosophy substance. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, reality is made of something, because God made the world out of clay.
It is a hallucination, there are no substances, reality isn't really made of anything.

If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?

If it is all a hallucination, do you hallucinate?

[Atla]

Because it is an abstraction, according to you a "pseudo-dualism" considering their are more value inputs than strictly 1 and 0.

Why would there be more inputs than 1s and 0s? Do you know how computers work? Again you are mixing abstractions with physical implementations.

Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?

Is this a battlefield, are we fighting for our lives? No, we are on a philosophy forum, talking about how things are. And yes I don't like when someone doesn't dare to face reality, but still preaches.

Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?

You don't even understand what "abstract" means, do you.

I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.

Linearity and circularity work hand in hand when applied correctly, yes. But what you do is self-refuting, nonsensical circular reasoning.

But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?

Again, you don't even seem to understand what the "abstract" is.

If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?

If it is all a hallucination, do you hallucinate?

You're taking every word out of context or I don't even know what's going on here. Reality is not made of anything as in any substance. Abstractness is abstractness. What the fuck does "reality based in the abstract" even mean. And no I don't see everything literally made of matter or thoughts.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because it is an abstraction, according to you a "pseudo-dualism" considering their are more value inputs than strictly 1 and 0.

Why would there be more inputs than 1s and 0s? Do you know how computers work? Again you are mixing abstractions with physical implementations.
How was the logic formed from which computer enabled themselves? As to the 1's and 0's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code
http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/art ... adic-logic

Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?

Is this a battlefield, are we fighting for our lives? No, we are on a philosophy forum, talking about how things are. And yes I don't like when someone doesn't dare to face reality, but still preaches.
Somehow I doubt, you have had any form of physical altercation or struggle...otherwise you would not only observe the necessity of "mind over matter", but quite frankly be thankful for the concept. I am guessing...early twenties, difficulty in college, couldn't get the girl, piss poor family (treated eachother poorly, not in the financial sense), and the general young male angry, because everything around him threatens his identity....is that a true guess?

The one thing I love, not like about philosophy, is that it has no real limits...I can address a concept...or the person directly. There are so many philosophical schools which justify each side.

But this is an internet forum dedicated, quite literally, to debating. If this is not real, then why are you here? Since when was a debate not a form of intellectual athleticism? How is this no different than intellectual exercise?

Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?

You don't even understand what "abstract" means, do you.
According to you it does not really exist, so in effect by your own definition if you understand it you understand nothing.

I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.

Linearity and circularity work hand in hand when applied correctly, yes. But what you do is self-refuting, nonsensical circular reasoning.
Observing your conclusions contradicting your premises...yes I am observing self-refuting nonsensical circular reasoning.

But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?

Again, you don't even seem to understand what the "abstract" is.

If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?

If it is all a hallucination, do you hallucinate?

You're taking every word out of context or I don't even know what's going on here. Reality is not made of anything as in any substance. Abstractness is abstractness. What the fuck does "reality based in the abstract" even mean. And no I don't see everything literally made of matter or thoughts.

Thank you for your "thoughts", I will take them in advisement.