One-way-street time vs circular time

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:07 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:03 pm
Atla: Since when do childish, personal insults amount to an actual argument people should pay attention to? I know there are a number of users here who believe that they "wipe the floor" with people by insulting them, because they lack any ability to make an actual cogent argument. I, however, am not one of those people.
There is no debate here in case you haven't noticed, the thread was over after half a page and I got curious why Eodnhoj says the things he says, why he's derailing the topic

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Science Fan » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:36 pm

Atta: What I have noticed is that you engage in a logical fallacy --- a personal attack. I've also noticed that a lot of people here seem to rely on this same fallacy. Why this is happening on a philosophy forum is beyond me. I would think such obvious blunders in logical thinking would not be relied upon by people on a philosophy forum.

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:42 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:36 pm
Atta: What I have noticed is that you engage in a logical fallacy --- a personal attack. I've also noticed that a lot of people here seem to rely on this same fallacy. Why this is happening on a philosophy forum is beyond me. I would think such obvious blunders in logical thinking would not be relied upon by people on a philosophy forum.
Look, how was I supposed to know beforehand that Eodnhoj is really hallucinating and that's the basis of his argument? And is telling someone who is hallucinating that he is hallucinating, an ad hominem?

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Science Fan » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:51 pm

Atla: There you go again with your fallacy. Let's assume he really was "hallucinating," as you claim? So? How would that in any way invalidate his arguments? It wouldn't. Gödel was most likely insane for a long time, but did that invalidate his theorems?

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:54 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:51 pm
Atla: There you go again with your fallacy. Let's assume he really was "hallucinating," as you claim? So? How would that in any way invalidate his arguments? It wouldn't. Gödel was most likely insane for a long time, but did that invalidate his theorems?
You can't just reify your abstractions, treat them as real outside world objects and then claim that they are the ones driving the world or whatever. How is that valid?

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Science Fan » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:59 pm

Atta: So, now you are begging the question? Assuming the very thing at issue? That fallacy is not a whole lot better than a personal attack, is it?

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:02 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:59 pm
Atta: So, now you are begging the question? Assuming the very thing at issue? That fallacy is not a whole lot better than a personal attack, is it?
What am I assuming?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:57 pm

Atla wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:47 pm
...
There is no debate genius, if there was one you lost it on the first page.
Actually you said it was a debate:

"That's right I'm fascinated by the things you say. You see I won the original debate like 2 and a half pages ago (if there ever was one), but I'm curious how you come up with all these things you say?"



Wait until your room lights up from every perceivable angle at one moment, a disk is hovering in the back yard shooting beams of light into the ground, or a 19th century little girl is running through your hallway, shadows pass by and the cubbard doors open mysteriously, or a 19th century woman is staring directly at you from a set of stairs in a house that was once "exorcised" of that same spirit......

The world is often times bigger than it appears to be....I tell myself I am crazy just to "fit in"...."don't worry about me I am just delusional....now who won the football game?"
You know this is bad right?
It was for the people involved, I didn't even see half of it unfortunately, but the other half I did. You are really going under hack aren't you posting seperate topics unrelated to this thread?




The summation of my argument stands:

Human observation is not merely approximate, considering to observe this through the human element, would in turn cause this to be an approximation in itself, hence an infinite regressive contradiction in one respect.

In a separate respect to observe the human condition as approximate, through the human condition would require the human condition to observe a constant; hence human observation observes both approximates and constants (and is therefore both approximate and constant). This approximation may strictly be a deficiency in observing constants, hence when we say the human condition observes approximates we are stating: the human condition can see constants, but not all of them.



Considering you cannot stay on topic, I will count this as you giving up...but go ahead and post more ad-hominums if you want...then go back to what you are good at a program computers....

you obviously are meant for slave labor...not thinking...it does not suit you.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:06 pm

Atla wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:54 pm
Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:51 pm
Atla: There you go again with your fallacy. Let's assume he really was "hallucinating," as you claim? So? How would that in any way invalidate his arguments? It wouldn't. Gödel was most likely insane for a long time, but did that invalidate his theorems?
You can't just reify your abstractions, treat them as real outside world objects and then claim that they are the ones driving the world or whatever. How is that valid?
The are not "outside world objects" but rather inherent within the world objects. In many respects the abstract nature of geometry can be argued as an ethereal glue in the respect that movement cannot exist without a geometric premise (circular movements and gradations of it).

In a separate respect what we understand of spatial direction, as dimension, is inseparable from quantity in itself. 1 direction is inseperable from "1", considering the observation of a "unit" is inseperable from the space it manifests, with the space itself being determined through its directions.

Take for example the line, as a unit it is pure extradimensional directon, it qualitatively extradimensional nature is inseperable quantitative 1 directionality. Now forming an object, such as a cube, from these multiple 1d linear unit-particulate, forms another unit-particulate which moves through time/space. This movement is always one direction (up/down/left/right/forwards/backwards are all one direction and fundamentally the same, they differ through their relations), but what we understand of it in moving in more than one direction is strictly its relation to other linear movements, these relations cause a percieved change in direction, yet it is always moving in that one direction.

So we cannot separate dimensions from a quantitative nature in many respects, with this quantitative nature fundamentally being space as direction.

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:06 pm
Actually you said it was a debate:
"If there ever was one" doesn't mean that there definitely was one.
Human observation is not merely approximate, considering to observe this through the human element, would in turn cause this to be an approximation in itself, hence an infinite regressive contradiction in one respect.
This only shows that you use some kind of circular thinking which leads to a made-up infinite regression. I see no argument here.
In a separate respect to observe the human condition as approximate, through the human condition would require the human condition to observe a constant; hence human observation observes both approximates and constants (and is therefore both approximate and constant). This approximation may strictly be a deficiency in observing constants, hence when we say the human condition observes approximates we are stating: the human condition can see constants, but not all of them.
You speak as if you existed outside the human condition, observing it. I couldn't understand the rest.
Considering you cannot stay on topic
Actually I'm not sure you ever addressed the topic. Observing time in two different ways is one thing, but ontologically speaking how could time be two contradictory things simultaneously?
The are not "outside world objects" but rather inherent within the world objects. In many respects the abstract nature of geometry can be argued as an ethereal glue in the respect that movement cannot exist without a geometric premise (circular movements and gradations of it).
The outside world is not an extension of your thoughts.
Geometry is not a glue, abstractions don't have magical power.
Movement in the universe exists without a geometric premise, whatever that is.
In a separate respect what we understand of spatial direction, as dimension, is inseparable from quantity in itself. 1 direction is inseperable from "1", considering the observation of a "unit" is inseperable from the space it manifests, with the space itself being determined through its directions.
Units are concepts, abstractions, they don't manifest anything. I couldn't make much sense of the rest either.
Take for example the line, as a unit it is pure extradimensional directon, it qualitatively extradimensional nature is inseperable quantitative 1 directionality.
A line is a mathematical object, it has no magical power. It doesn't exist in actual space and it doesn't form cubes in actual space.
Now forming an object, such as a cube, from these multiple 1d linear unit-particulate, forms another unit-particulate which moves through time/space. This movement is always one direction (up/down/left/right/forwards/backwards are all one direction and fundamentally the same, they differ through their relations), but what we understand of it in moving in more than one direction is strictly its relation to other linear movements, these relations cause a percieved change in direction, yet it is always moving in that one direction.
A mathematical object like a cube is a mathematical object, it has no magical power. Mathematical objects do not exist and move in actual spacetime.
So we cannot separate dimensions from a quantitative nature in many respects, with this quantitative nature fundamentally being space as direction.
Dimensionality is very useful in describing the universe, and there may be more than 3-4, but dimensionality itself does not wield magical power.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:20 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:06 pm
Actually you said it was a debate:
"If there ever was one" doesn't mean that there definitely was one.
But you claimed if there was you won, that is not the case, first to resort to only ad-hominums shows an intellectual inferiority.
Human observation is not merely approximate, considering to observe this through the human element, would in turn cause this to be an approximation in itself, hence an infinite regressive contradiction in one respect.
This only shows that you use some kind of circular thinking which leads to a made-up infinite regression. I see no argument here.

Actually the form of your argument is inherently circular. You claim all human knowledge is approximation, yet you as a human make this statement, hence by the form alone you contradict yourself in these respects. At minimum: You either have to observe that you contradict yourself or, that human nature observes both approximates and constants.




In a separate respect to observe the human condition as approximate, through the human condition would require the human condition to observe a constant; hence human observation observes both approximates and constants (and is therefore both approximate and constant). This approximation may strictly be a deficiency in observing constants, hence when we say the human condition observes approximates we are stating: the human condition can see constants, but not all of them.
You speak as if you existed outside the human condition, observing it. I couldn't understand the rest.

If you cannot understand something, then either ask a question or do not argue against it. Let's look at this practically, you claim you cannot understand the majority of what I have to say, then how can you argue against it (or even for it if you chose too?)

In all truth, you are unskilled at any form of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking, specifically metaphysics, requires an observation of concepts (where mathematics dually observes quantitative realities), but you claim concepts exist only in the head. But the problem occurs in the respect this, as an atomic axiom (or a truth fact, part of truth, piece of larger truth) in itself must exist simultaneously as an observable concept in itself. Hence, when you say all human observation is approximation, what you are observing is an intellectual concept that mirrors empirical reality.


Considering you cannot stay on topic
Actually I'm not sure you ever addressed the topic. Observing time in two different ways is one thing, but ontologically speaking how could time be two contradictory things simultaneously?

Simple, in different respects. What we understand of something existing simultaneously, at the same time (pardon the pun) in different respects, breaks down to:

1) Coexisting dimensions
2) Looking at the problem from a specific angle of awareness
3) Observing "parts" which relate as a "whole".

Hence to observe time, through "time" causes a problem in observation in the respect that the premises eventually circle back to the axiomatic form. A regression manifests considering what we understand of time, as movement, in itself causes the definition to "move". Looking at time, as strictly a dimension of movement, allows time to exist for what it is while simultaneously enabling one to look at it from a dimension of "no-change" much in the manner of seeing it like a function. A function may continually change relative to the variable, however the function as a set of variables maintains itself as the same function.

In these respects we can observe a set of dimensions as both "change" and "no-change" without contradicting either. This dualism, much in the same manner of a hegelian dialectic or pythagorean triple, results in a synthesis of dimension conducive to an axiom or dimension in itself. This synthesis of axioms, inseperable from truth as truth, maintains a degree of neutrality in the respect it exists as "both/and" the thesis and anti-thesis by providing limits which give structure, while providing in a seperate respect a neutral "neither" in which the axiom exists as an infinite formless structure in itself.

So the axiom as a dimension of observation, with dimensionality existing fundamentally as spatial direction, maintains a positive and negative neutrality in its own right and provides both a foundation and end point for what we considering "knowledge".

The are not "outside world objects" but rather inherent within the world objects. In many respects the abstract nature of geometry can be argued as an ethereal glue in the respect that movement cannot exist without a geometric premise (circular movements and gradations of it).
The outside world is not an extension of your thoughts.
And the idea of binary logic did not form the basis for the computer? For the record, if you want to have any degree of respect, you must present an argument (by observing the nature of definiton through its logical consistency) rather than saying "yes" and "no" because "I said so"....you look like an ignorant child when you do this and considering you are probably approaching or are at middle age, it is just pathetic.

Geometry is not a glue, abstractions don't have magical power.
Geometry is the observation of space as space, and observes space both qualitatively (through conceptual forms) or quantitatively (through the quantitative directional space [ie. lines and points which seperate the lines]). Considering the nature of space is inherently an inseperable axiom in its own right (as both abstract and physical realities manifest themselves fundamentally as spatial ones) the nature of geometry is not entirely seperable from what we observe as the foundation for abstract and physical phenomena.

We view space through space, while intuitively organizing these arguments (as axioms) as "points" or "lines" in themselves. We argue in a linear or circular (composed of multiple lines extending from one point) manner to give form to the concepts and realities we seek to define.


Movement in the universe exists without a geometric premise, whatever that is.

Actually it does not, considering the frequencies we observe a merely alternating linear structures moving towards point zero. Add the fact that these structures share rotational movements, whether it be stars or atoms, and what we understand of as movement is inseperable from approximate geometric forms.
In a separate respect what we understand of spatial direction, as dimension, is inseparable from quantity in itself. 1 direction is inseperable from "1", considering the observation of a "unit" is inseperable from the space it manifests, with the space itself being determined through its directions.
Units are concepts, abstractions, they don't manifest anything. I couldn't make much sense of the rest either.

Well if units are strictly "concepts, abstracts...[that] don't manifest anything" then maybe you should not use the unit of measurement "I" to talk about yourself considering "I" can be viewed synonymous to "1" qualitatively and quantitatively.
Take for example the line, as a unit it is pure extradimensional directon, it qualitatively extradimensional nature is inseperable quantitative 1 directionality.
A line is a mathematical object, it has no magical power. It doesn't exist in actual space and it doesn't form cubes in actual space.

The movement of all physical realities exist through geometric units, fundamentally in linear movement. What we understand of all geometric forms greater than 2 lines or less than a number of lines approaching infinity (non-circular geometric forms) are strictly geometric forms which exist as particles (or parts of) other geometric forms.

If I clock the movement of an object moving from Point A to Point B to Point C, the object itself may strictly be a linear movement between points, however each point, as a place in space, observes the totatlity of the objects movements forming a geometric form.

If I cross the street to go smoke a cigarette, then approach a car that needs help changing a flat, then move back to my origin point of work, each movement between points may summate as a linear movement in itself, however, when these movement is viewed in its totatility it may form some form of angular structure (most probably a triangle). In these respects what we understand of geometric structures, as movements, is inseperable from spatial movement in itself. These movement, as a form of boundaries through direction, gives structure to the reality itself and glues it together.

If the movement I commit, has no structure to it (embodied at its height through relativistic geometric forms, which in themselves are constants as forms in themselves), then the movement ceases to exist or cannot take place to begin with.

Movement, as spatial direction, is an observation of dimensionality as "form", and what we understand of as movement is glued together through inherent geometric forms.

Now forming an object, such as a cube, from these multiple 1d linear unit-particulate, forms another unit-particulate which moves through time/space. This movement is always one direction (up/down/left/right/forwards/backwards are all one direction and fundamentally the same, they differ through their relations), but what we understand of it in moving in more than one direction is strictly its relation to other linear movements, these relations cause a percieved change in direction, yet it is always moving in that one direction.
A mathematical object like a cube is a mathematical object, it has no magical power. Mathematical objects do not exist and move in actual spacetime.
And that cube, or approximate of it, gives no structure to the computer screen you work on? Lets say, the computer was not cube approximate (rectangle, etc.) but some other form such as a triangle or circle, could the computer exist without this geometric form? The answer is no...the geometry of it glues the reality together.
So we cannot separate dimensions from a quantitative nature in many respects, with this quantitative nature fundamentally being space as direction.
Dimensionality is very useful in describing the universe, and there may be more than 3-4, but dimensionality itself does not wield magical power.
Dimensionality is strictly space as direction, it is the foundation for movement. How can one seperate movement from spatial direction?

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:20 pm
But you claimed if there was you won, that is not the case, first to resort to only ad-hominums shows an intellectual inferiority.
If there was no debate and all your posts were off topic, then why does that make me intellectually inferior?
Actually the form of your argument is inherently circular. You claim all human knowledge is approximation, yet you as a human make this statement, hence by the form alone you contradict yourself in these respects. At minimum: You either have to observe that you contradict yourself or, that human nature observes both approximates and constants.
Both options you listed are wrong, you show a lack of basic philosophical understanding. Of course we can never be 100% certain of anything, that should go without saying.
If you cannot understand something, then either ask a question or do not argue against it. Let's look at this practically, you claim you cannot understand the majority of what I have to say, then how can you argue against it (or even for it if you chose too?)
The ones I do understand are almost all wrong. So the ones that are based on them are even more so, why should I spend a lot of time trying to decipher something that's wrong like 3 times over?

And when will YOU address my comments?
In all truth, you are unskilled at any form of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking, specifically metaphysics, requires an observation of concepts (where mathematics dually observes quantitative realities), but you claim concepts exist only in the head. But the problem occurs in the respect this, as an atomic axiom (or a truth fact, part of truth, piece of larger truth) in itself must exist simultaneously as an observable concept in itself. Hence, when you say all human observation is approximation, what you are observing is an intellectual concept that mirrors empirical reality.
Actually I probably have an abstract thinking ability which goes beyond yours by at least one level, just in a completely different way.
Why do concepts have to be observed, what does that even mean. Are your concepts not part of you?
Simple, in different respects. What we understand of something existing simultaneously, at the same time (pardon the pun) in different respects, breaks down to:

1) Coexisting dimensions
2) Looking at the problem from a specific angle of awareness
3) Observing "parts" which relate as a "whole".

Hence to observe time, through "time" causes a problem in observation in the respect that the premises eventually circle back to the axiomatic form. A regression manifests considering what we understand of time, as movement, in itself causes the definition to "move". Looking at time, as strictly a dimension of movement, allows time to exist for what it is while simultaneously enabling one to look at it from a dimension of "no-change" much in the manner of seeing it like a function. A function may continually change relative to the variable, however the function as a set of variables maintains itself as the same function.

In these respects we can observe a set of dimensions as both "change" and "no-change" without contradicting either. This dualism, much in the same manner of a hegelian dialectic or pythagorean triple, results in a synthesis of dimension conducive to an axiom or dimension in itself. This synthesis of axioms, inseperable from truth as truth, maintains a degree of neutrality in the respect it exists as "both/and" the thesis and anti-thesis by providing limits which give structure, while providing in a seperate respect a neutral "neither" in which the axiom exists as an infinite formless structure in itself.

So the axiom as a dimension of observation, with dimensionality existing fundamentally as spatial direction, maintains a positive and negative neutrality in its own right and provides both a foundation and end point for what we considering "knowledge".
Word salad, and you missed the point. Time can't ontologically speaking be two contradictory things simultaneously.
And the idea of binary logic did not form the basis for the computer? For the record, if you want to have any degree of respect, you must present an argument (by observing the nature of definiton through its logical consistency) rather than saying "yes" and "no" because "I said so"....you look like an ignorant child when you do this and considering you are probably approaching or are at middle age, it is just pathetic.
Actually, if you say to psychologists that the world is an extension of your thoughts, they will medicate you. It just isn't, there is nothing to debate here.
Of course binary logic forms the basis for computers, what does this has to do with it.
Geometry is the observation of space as space, and observes space both qualitatively (through conceptual forms) or quantitatively (through the quantitative directional space [ie. lines and points which seperate the lines]). Considering the nature of space is inherently an inseperable axiom in its own right (as both abstract and physical realities manifest themselves fundamentally as spatial ones) the nature of geometry is not entirely seperable from what we observe as the foundation for abstract and physical phenomena.

We view space through space, while intuitively organizing these arguments (as axioms) as "points" or "lines" in themselves. We argue in a linear or circular (composed of multiple lines extending from one point) manner to give form to the concepts and realities we seek to define.
Space is just space. Abstract realities don't manifest themselves. Abstractions wield no power.

Stop using "we" because no one other than you believes these things. WE don't think like you because it's just not how the world works.
Well if units are strictly "concepts, abstracts...[that] don't manifest anything" then maybe you should not use the unit of measurement "I" to talk about yourself considering "I" can be viewed synonymous to "1" qualitatively and quantitatively.
Not true, depends on what we mean by I. It usually refers to one or more cognitive processes in the head, so exists in that way.
And how am I supposed to communicate without this word anyway?
The movement of all physical realities exist through geometric units, fundamentally in linear movement.
They absolutely don't, so I didn't even bother to read the rest. I should get paid for even responding to you at all.
And that cube, or approximate of it, gives no structure to the computer screen you work on? Lets say, the computer was not cube approximate (rectangle, etc.) but some other form such as a triangle or circle, could the computer exist without this geometric form? The answer is no...the geometry of it glues the reality together.
No, the damn monitor in front of me has nothing to do with mathematical objects floating around.
Nothing is glued together like that, we have elementary forces and other things for that. Have you ever heard of physics? It's pretty successful.
Dimensionality is strictly space as direction, it is the foundation for movement. How can one seperate movement from spatial direction?
I mean that abstractions have no magical power.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:31 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:20 pm
But you claimed if there was you won, that is not the case, first to resort to only ad-hominums shows an intellectual inferiority.
If there was no debate and all your posts were off topic, then why does that make me intellectually inferior?

Because you have no argument, literally, you say that reality exists in a specific manner...okay...why? And you cease to give any explanation other than quoting pseudo-empirical truths. What makes them pseudo-empirical is not that truth you claim itself, but rather you inability to observe or even argue a simple premise of A leading to B causes C.

If you would quotes sources, on your behalf, that it somewhat respectable, but you do not even attempt it.

Actually the form of your argument is inherently circular. You claim all human knowledge is approximation, yet you as a human make this statement, hence by the form alone you contradict yourself in these respects. At minimum: You either have to observe that you contradict yourself or, that human nature observes both approximates and constants.
Both options you listed are wrong, you show a lack of basic philosophical understanding. Of course we can never be 100% certain of anything, that should go without saying.

Then you cannot be 100% certain about your own statement, hence if it is remotely probable I am right, then by default it must eventually be right, otherwise it is not probable. Probabilities observe the relation of logistic atoms (either quantitatively through number or qualitatively through facts) and cannot provide a constant form of evaluation without first observing that "probability" itself cannot be probabilistic in its interpretation.
If you cannot understand something, then either ask a question or do not argue against it. Let's look at this practically, you claim you cannot understand the majority of what I have to say, then how can you argue against it (or even for it if you chose too?)
The ones I do understand are almost all wrong. So the ones that are based on them are even more so, why should I spend a lot of time trying to decipher something that's wrong like 3 times over?

And when will YOU address my comments?

I have, you are to stupid to understand what I am saying...and what comment of your's am I avoiding? I have not avoided any, at least intentionally, so if you feel "avoided" then repost them in a list and I will respond to each one individually.
In all truth, you are unskilled at any form of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking, specifically metaphysics, requires an observation of concepts (where mathematics dually observes quantitative realities), but you claim concepts exist only in the head. But the problem occurs in the respect this, as an atomic axiom (or a truth fact, part of truth, piece of larger truth) in itself must exist simultaneously as an observable concept in itself. Hence, when you say all human observation is approximation, what you are observing is an intellectual concept that mirrors empirical reality.
Actually I probably have an abstract thinking ability which goes beyond yours by at least one level, just in a completely different way.
Why do concepts have to be observed, what does that even mean. Are your concepts not part of you?

You claim abstract ability is measured through IQ, and implied it is strictly measured through IQ, although the IQ test fails on multiple levels and is not conducive to an accurate measurement of intelligence, we can start there (considering that is how you measurement). Mine is approximately 160 according to the stanford binet model, or ranged at the level of (to quote) "a nuclear physicist" if applying a one psychoanalytic method...that should satisfy your standards for "abstract thinking ability". I don't agree this is a good standard, and I can argue against it any time you wish, but considering you place such an emphasis of putting reality inside a box (partly evidenced by your career choice), it can be a start.
Simple, in different respects. What we understand of something existing simultaneously, at the same time (pardon the pun) in different respects, breaks down to:

1) Coexisting dimensions
2) Looking at the problem from a specific angle of awareness
3) Observing "parts" which relate as a "whole".

Hence to observe time, through "time" causes a problem in observation in the respect that the premises eventually circle back to the axiomatic form. A regression manifests considering what we understand of time, as movement, in itself causes the definition to "move". Looking at time, as strictly a dimension of movement, allows time to exist for what it is while simultaneously enabling one to look at it from a dimension of "no-change" much in the manner of seeing it like a function. A function may continually change relative to the variable, however the function as a set of variables maintains itself as the same function.

In these respects we can observe a set of dimensions as both "change" and "no-change" without contradicting either. This dualism, much in the same manner of a hegelian dialectic or pythagorean triple, results in a synthesis of dimension conducive to an axiom or dimension in itself. This synthesis of axioms, inseperable from truth as truth, maintains a degree of neutrality in the respect it exists as "both/and" the thesis and anti-thesis by providing limits which give structure, while providing in a seperate respect a neutral "neither" in which the axiom exists as an infinite formless structure in itself.

So the axiom as a dimension of observation, with dimensionality existing fundamentally as spatial direction, maintains a positive and negative neutrality in its own right and provides both a foundation and end point for what we considering "knowledge".
Word salad, and you missed the point. Time can't ontologically speaking be two contradictory things simultaneously.

No you are just stupid, you should have left the conversation a long time ago. The wave-particle duality is one example, one which emphasizes the physics you place in such high regard.
And the idea of binary logic did not form the basis for the computer? For the record, if you want to have any degree of respect, you must present an argument (by observing the nature of definiton through its logical consistency) rather than saying "yes" and "no" because "I said so"....you look like an ignorant child when you do this and considering you are probably approaching or are at middle age, it is just pathetic.
Actually, if you say to psychologists that the world is an extension of your thoughts, they will medicate you. It just isn't, there is nothing to debate here.
Alot of modern and ancient philosophers would have agreed with that point. Husserl and Heidegger are some of the more recent, but many sports psychologist emphasize various forms of visualization techniques and "mind over matter" to push the limits of the human body.

Of course binary logic forms the basis for computers, what does this has to do with it.
Because logic is abstraction, or can you point to me the physical structures which form it?
Geometry is the observation of space as space, and observes space both qualitatively (through conceptual forms) or quantitatively (through the quantitative directional space [ie. lines and points which seperate the lines]). Considering the nature of space is inherently an inseperable axiom in its own right (as both abstract and physical realities manifest themselves fundamentally as spatial ones) the nature of geometry is not entirely seperable from what we observe as the foundation for abstract and physical phenomena.

We view space through space, while intuitively organizing these arguments (as axioms) as "points" or "lines" in themselves. We argue in a linear or circular (composed of multiple lines extending from one point) manner to give form to the concepts and realities we seek to define.
Space is just space. Abstract realities don't manifest themselves. Abstractions wield no power.

Stop using "we" because no one other than you believes these things. WE don't think like you because it's just not how the world works.

Actually I am extending upon concepts from others, previously observed above. You say noone agree with me, then claim what I argue reflects buddhism or platonism, so there are no buddhist or platonists alive today? Wait let me answer that for you, they exist but they are stupid...according to you...

You really should go back to programming computers and making the world a better place....hahahha...go back to be told how to think, you obviously cannot do it for yourself...slave.

Well if units are strictly "concepts, abstracts...[that] don't manifest anything" then maybe you should not use the unit of measurement "I" to talk about yourself considering "I" can be viewed synonymous to "1" qualitatively and quantitatively.
Not true, depends on what we mean by I. It usually refers to one or more cognitive processes in the head, so exists in that way.
And how am I supposed to communicate without this word anyway?

You? You can't communicate without it, because you are stuck inside your own head and hide behind computer's for a living...no wonder you have to keep coming back here....you can't stop yourself can you?

Tell me...what is a cognitive process?

The movement of all physical realities exist through geometric units, fundamentally in linear movement.
They absolutely don't, so I didn't even bother to read the rest. I should get paid for even responding to you at all.

You don't respond, because responding would imply you observe an argument by applying logical structure to it, in all truth the only person forcing you here is your ego...
And that cube, or approximate of it, gives no structure to the computer screen you work on? Lets say, the computer was not cube approximate (rectangle, etc.) but some other form such as a triangle or circle, could the computer exist without this geometric form? The answer is no...the geometry of it glues the reality together.
No, the damn monitor in front of me has nothing to do with mathematical objects floating around.
Okay, then stop programming it in binary code.

Nothing is glued together like that, we have elementary forces and other things for that. Have you ever heard of physics? It's pretty successful.

Last time I check godel's incompleteness theorems and principle of uncertainty put that into question...besides modern physics cannot exist without abstractions such as algebra. Matter is not even defined anymore, once physics was a study of matter, and now it is not, hence it is continually changing...what will be a right interpretation one day will be wrong a hundred years from now...even you admit the physical laws may change over time.
Dimensionality is strictly space as direction, it is the foundation for movement. How can one seperate movement from spatial direction?
I mean that abstractions have no magical power.
They do over you, because not only cannot you not provide a basic argument of "why" the universe works the way it does (other than quoting principles such as "entropy", which is where your'e argument is headed) but you keep responding to someone you claim is wrong. If I am wrong, then why bother?

People like you, who reason only through their emotions, are easy to manipulate....I plan on keeping you here for a long time...or am I using reverse psychology to push you out? Both? Or neither...I just like seeing you frustrated?

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:31 pm
Because you have no argument, literally, you say that reality exists in a specific manner...okay...why? And you cease to give any explanation other than quoting pseudo-empirical truths. What makes them pseudo-empirical is not that truth you claim itself, but rather you inability to observe or even argue a simple premise of A leading to B causes C.

If you would quotes sources, on your behalf, that it somewhat respectable, but you do not even attempt it.
This isn't the subject so why should I go into this? Besides you said almost nothing valid about this anyway, while I mentioned a few things.
Then you cannot be 100% certain about your own statement, hence if it is remotely probable I am right, then by default it must eventually be right, otherwise it is not probable. Probabilities observe the relation of logistic atoms (either quantitatively through number or qualitatively through facts) and cannot provide a constant form of evaluation without first observing that "probability" itself cannot be probabilistic in its interpretation.
We can't ever have absolute certainty in philosophy (which is obvious to everyone with half a brain), therefore you are necessarily right. Got it.
I have, you are to stupid to understand what I am saying...and what comment of your's am I avoiding? I have not avoided any, at least intentionally, so if you feel "avoided" then repost them in a list and I will respond to each one individually.
You could start with the opening post for example
You claim abstract ability is measured through IQ, and implied it is strictly measured through IQ, although the IQ test fails on multiple levels and is not conducive to an accurate measurement of intelligence, we can start there (considering that is how you measurement). Mine is approximately 160 according to the stanford binet model, or ranged at the level of (to quote) "a nuclear physicist" if applying a one psychoanalytic method...that should satisfy your standards for "abstract thinking ability". I don't agree this is a good standard, and I can argue against it any time you wish, but considering you place such an emphasis of putting reality inside a box (partly evidenced by your career choice), it can be a start.
Don't lie, I didn't claim that abstract ability is measured through IQ. It does tend to correlate though. And high IQ is just one of the two main forms of genius.
I never put reality into a box btw, you did.
No you are just stupid, you should have left the conversation a long time ago. The wave-particle duality is one example, one which emphasizes the physics you place in such high regard.
So now you are also denying physics?
Oh wait.. of course, you must be. You already did before with the computers.
Alot of modern and ancient philosophers would have agreed with that point. Husserl and Heidegger are some of the more recent, but many sports psychologist emphasize various forms of visualization techniques and "mind over matter" to push the limits of the human body.
Well duh, technique is one thing. Mistaking them for actual outside world objects things is another.
Actually I am extending upon concepts from others, previously observed above. You say noone agree with me, then claim what I argue reflects buddhism or platonism, so there are no buddhist or platonists alive today? Wait let me answer that for you, they exist but they are stupid...according to you...

You really should go back to programming computers and making the world a better place....hahahha...go back to be told how to think, you obviously cannot do it for yourself...slave.
Okay you're not entirely alone. But mathematical Platonists don't usually think that abstract realms mix with the physical world. And most Buddhists I know of don't have your confusions at all so don't generalize.
You? You can't communicate without it, because you are stuck inside your own head and hide behind computer's for a living...no wonder you have to keep coming back here....you can't stop yourself can you?

Tell me...what is a cognitive process?
I don't even work in IT, just studied it for a few years lol.. again you make false assumptions.

And considering you have a lot more posts than me (and I'm only present on this philosophy forum) your remark is rather funny.
Okay, then stop programming it in binary code.
So because your made up objects don't float in the air, we should stop writing computer programs in binary. Got it.
Last time I check godel's incompleteness theorems and principle of uncertainty put that into question...besides modern physics cannot exist without abstractions such as algebra. Matter is not even defined anymore, once physics was a study of matter, and now it is not, hence it is continually changing...what will be a right interpretation one day will be wrong a hundred years from now...even you admit the physical laws may change over time.
So because physics isn't perfectly worked out yet, we should get rid of it huh.
They do over you, because not only cannot you not provide a basic argument of "why" the universe works the way it does (other than quoting principles such as "entropy", which is where your'e argument is headed) but you keep responding to someone you claim is wrong. If I am wrong, then why bother?
Again, you failed to realize what this topic is about. Nor did you say almost anything valid about the "why". (Make a topic about that if you want.) You would be shocked to see how far I've come in working that question out, and I can tell you, your one-universe approach is a dead end. You can't even see that, ridiculous. However I'm not interested in talking about deep philosophy on the internet.
People like you, who reason only through their emotions, are easy to manipulate....I plan on keeping you here for a long time...or am I using reverse psychology to push you out? Both? Or neither...I just like seeing you frustrated?
I think you have it backwards. :) I kept this topic going after page 1 just to see what's really going on here? It can get really tedious sometimes but don't you realize that I'm basically enjoying myself?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:35 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:31 pm
Because you have no argument, literally, you say that reality exists in a specific manner...okay...why? And you cease to give any explanation other than quoting pseudo-empirical truths. What makes them pseudo-empirical is not that truth you claim itself, but rather you inability to observe or even argue a simple premise of A leading to B causes C.

If you would quotes sources, on your behalf, that it somewhat respectable, but you do not even attempt it.
This isn't the subject so why should I go into this? Besides you said almost nothing valid about this anyway, while I mentioned a few things.

No you haven't mentioned anything, except to throw a few principles of physics around. You don't want a conversation, you want to prove how "smart" you think you are...so I will put it to the test.
Then you cannot be 100% certain about your own statement, hence if it is remotely probable I am right, then by default it must eventually be right, otherwise it is not probable. Probabilities observe the relation of logistic atoms (either quantitatively through number or qualitatively through facts) and cannot provide a constant form of evaluation without first observing that "probability" itself cannot be probabilistic in its interpretation.
We can't ever have absolute certainty in philosophy (which is obvious to everyone with half a brain), therefore you are necessarily right. Got it.
You claim we cannot have any absolute certain at all considering all means of understanding, through human awareness, are merely just approximations. I am strictly pointing out that your statement of "we cannot have certainty" is not only a statement of certainty but depending on the words which form it having conceptual certainty.
I have, you are to stupid to understand what I am saying...and what comment of your's am I avoiding? I have not avoided any, at least intentionally, so if you feel "avoided" then repost them in a list and I will respond to each one individually.
You could start with the opening post for example

I covered it it you read my response.
You claim abstract ability is measured through IQ, and implied it is strictly measured through IQ, although the IQ test fails on multiple levels and is not conducive to an accurate measurement of intelligence, we can start there (considering that is how you measurement). Mine is approximately 160 according to the stanford binet model, or ranged at the level of (to quote) "a nuclear physicist" if applying a one psychoanalytic method...that should satisfy your standards for "abstract thinking ability". I don't agree this is a good standard, and I can argue against it any time you wish, but considering you place such an emphasis of putting reality inside a box (partly evidenced by your career choice), it can be a start.
Don't lie, I didn't claim that abstract ability is measured through IQ. It does tend to correlate though. And high IQ is just one of the two main forms of genius.

"You seem to be misunderstanding something here, abstract thinking is an everyday thing, especially above ~100-110 IQ or so. There is nothing special about it. It's a type of human thinking. Of course all great thinkers were perfectly capable of abstractness, but some might have misunderstood it."
You equate abstract thinking within the human condition to an IQ number, it is not a statement of implication you made. Either you don't know what you are talking about, you are lying, or most likely the case is you are just angry because your world-view is threatened.

I never put reality into a box btw, you did.
You build computers for a living, you literally do. You cannot claim I put everything in a box, when all you claim is that my reasoning is either circular or irrational.
No you are just stupid, you should have left the conversation a long time ago. The wave-particle duality is one example, one which emphasizes the physics you place in such high regard.
So now you are also denying physics?
Oh wait.. of course, you must be. You already did before with the computers.
I am not denying empirical knowledge at all, it has its place. But even you point out the laws of physics may change, who is the real one denying it?
Alot of modern and ancient philosophers would have agreed with that point. Husserl and Heidegger are some of the more recent, but many sports psychologist emphasize various forms of visualization techniques and "mind over matter" to push the limits of the human body.
Well duh, technique is one thing. Mistaking them for actual outside world objects things is another.
A technique, as a function of perception, causes the empirical world we understand to change.
Actually I am extending upon concepts from others, previously observed above. You say noone agree with me, then claim what I argue reflects buddhism or platonism, so there are no buddhist or platonists alive today? Wait let me answer that for you, they exist but they are stupid...according to you...

You really should go back to programming computers and making the world a better place....hahahha...go back to be told how to think, you obviously cannot do it for yourself...slave.
Okay you're not entirely alone.
But you without a shadow of a doubt claimed I was alone in this perception.

But mathematical Platonists don't usually think that abstract realms mix with the physical world.
And what is a mathematical Platonist exaclty considering they study qualitative forms also? Many platonist perspective view matter as strictly a form of extension of forms

And most Buddhists I know of don't have your confusions at all so don't generalize.

No you are the hypocrite who is generalizing:

https://asiasociety.org/tibetan-buddhist-debate

You? You can't communicate without it, because you are stuck inside your own head and hide behind computer's for a living...no wonder you have to keep coming back here....you can't stop yourself can you?

Tell me...what is a cognitive process?
I don't even work in IT, just studied it for a few years lol.. again you make false assumptions.

Oh...so you are not even an expert in your computer field? You never even worked on a computer in your course of study? If you didn't then you did not study it at all, but if you did then my point still stands.

But don't avoid the question, what is a cognitive process?


And considering you have a lot more posts than me (and I'm only present on this philosophy forum) your remark is rather funny.

The question is meant for you, I already have an argument, you should have seen it by now. What is a cognitive process to you?
Okay, then stop programming it in binary code.
So because your made up objects don't float in the air, we should stop writing computer programs in binary. Got it.

How are these objects floating in air, using the prior computer example, they form reality?
Last time I check godel's incompleteness theorems and principle of uncertainty put that into question...besides modern physics cannot exist without abstractions such as algebra. Matter is not even defined anymore, once physics was a study of matter, and now it is not, hence it is continually changing...what will be a right interpretation one day will be wrong a hundred years from now...even you admit the physical laws may change over time.
So because physics isn't perfectly worked out yet, we should get rid of it huh.

If it is not perfectly worked out yet, then how can you argue it as the premise for all truth? All the "laws" you claim the universe works by, you also claim can change, hence by default your argument is strictly in a state of perpetual change.
They do over you, because not only cannot you not provide a basic argument of "why" the universe works the way it does (other than quoting principles such as "entropy", which is where your'e argument is headed) but you keep responding to someone you claim is wrong. If I am wrong, then why bother?
Again, you failed to realize what this topic is about. Nor did you say almost anything valid about the "why". (Make a topic about that if you want.)
How about you cut through the pseudo-empirical arguments and strictly make the next post about "what I am not covering".
You would be shocked to see how far I've come in working that question out, and I can tell you, your one-universe approach is a dead end. You can't even see that, ridiculous. However I'm not interested in talking about deep philosophy on the internet.


People like you, who reason only through their emotions, are easy to manipulate....I plan on keeping you here for a long time...or am I using reverse psychology to push you out? Both? Or neither...I just like seeing you frustrated?
I think you have it backwards. :) I kept this topic going after page 1 just to see what's really going on here? It can get really tedious sometimes but don't you realize that I'm basically enjoying myself?
How can I when the conversation is through a computer screen? I am pulling everything you know out of you, whether you like it or not...you have no choice but to respond...you are here because I tell you to respond...it is that simple. And why am I forcing you to do this? to observe my premise from every conceivable angle.

You don't get it, I am just playing your ego....

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bahman, surreptitious57 and 12 guests