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.