Page 5 of 14

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
Ontology is bullshit according to you because there is no truth, hence no error.
Yes! That's the error. You are trying to 'ontologise' a number. In the Platonism/Nominalism stand-off I am more of a conceptualist.

Still an ontology as a truth system.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
No, of numbers are used for counting...show me the number 1 without using an assumption.
It's right here ---> 1

You are assuming a symbol, there are variations of how one is expressed.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
Counting then is strictly a replication of experiences, then based off of group agreed upon axioms.
Counting is individuation. From phenomenology - when you bracket some object of experience. You individuate it. One.

True, I will will have to agree to that. But a problem still occurs bracket is not defined and all experiences (such as me tasting ice cream) require an assumption of the senses.

Bracketing is a process of divergence, but divergence has no form except through a projection on one axiom away from another. The only form that occurs is the line as a projective entity. But like the point, as it is composed of points, the line is assumed.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
I have a better idea, show me how one "counts" one entity...without assuming anything of course.
You want me to show you how to count? OK.

. (one)
. (two)
. (three)
. (four)
There is also:

1,3,5,6...
2,4,6,8...
1,4,7,10...
1,5,8,11...
Etc.

There are infinite ways of counting...thus we are left with an assumption of counting as one infinite dynamic set. This still requires you to "show me 1".

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,3,5,6...
How many numbers are on this line?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
2,4,6,8...
And on this one?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,4,7,10...
And here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,5,8,11...
And here?

Whatever system of counting you invent, I am thinking you should answer all of the questions above in the same way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
You are assuming a symbol, there are variations of how one is expressed.
No. I am assuming a quantity. You are assuming that I am assuming a symbol.

What symbols I use to signify a singular quantity is but an alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:07 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,3,5,6...
How many numbers are on this line?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
2,4,6,8...
And on this one?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,4,7,10...
And here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:56 pm
1,5,8,11...
And here?

Whatever system of counting you invent, I am thinking you should answer all of the questions above in the same way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
Infinite progression, that is what ... stands for as a symbolic notation of numbers.

Even the act of counting itself is recursive and cannot be counted.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:09 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
You are assuming a symbol, there are variations of how one is expressed.
No. I am assuming a quantity. You are assuming that I am assuming a symbol.

What symbols I use to signify a singular quantity is but an alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

All quantities are symbolic by nature as all finite realities requires further finite realities to determine there existence. This is considering existence, of any finite part, is grounded in relation.

However you prove my point further, your counting and number system is an assumption. Show me one without assuming anything...you quite obviously admitted to an assumption.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:09 pm
All quantities are symbolic by nature as all finite realities requires further finite realities to determine there existence.
"Existence" is a metaphysical notion. Whether numbers exist is yet another philosophical circle-jerk between the Platonists and Nominalists.
Nobody knows what existence is or whether the number 1 exists. I use numbers for counting and that works for me.

But the simple geometrical and arithmetic fact is that if you take 🦶🦶🦶 steps, then turn right, then take another 🦶🦶🦶🦶 steps, you will be 🦶🦶🦶🦶🦶 steps away from where you started.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:09 pm
However you prove my point further, your counting and number system is an assumption. Show me one without assuming anything...you quite obviously admitted to an assumption.
I am assuming experience. As are you.

Pythagoras' theorem is a fact of this universe if you ignore the curvature of Earth.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 am
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:09 pm
All quantities are symbolic by nature as all finite realities requires further finite realities to determine there existence.
"Existence" is a metaphysical notion. Whether numbers exist is yet another philosophical circle-jerk between the Platonists and Nominalists.
Nobody knows what existence is or whether the number 1 exists. I use numbers for counting and that works for me.

How can you use a tool that you do not know if it exists? Do you just assume things?

But the simple geometrical and arithmetic fact is that if you take 🦶🦶🦶 steps, then turn right, then take another 🦶🦶🦶🦶 steps, you will be 🦶🦶🦶🦶🦶 steps away from where you started.

Each step as quantified is assumed, as to quantify a phenomenon as one is to assume it as one is assumed.

Each step is the quantification of specific, movements based upon specific patterns with quantification being specification. The problem occurs in that in quantifying one reality you qualify another, in localizing one you approximate another.

Measurement effectively judges itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:09 pm
However you prove my point further, your counting and number system is an assumption. Show me one without assuming anything...you quite obviously admitted to an assumption.
I am assuming experience. As are you.

Pythagoras' theorem is a fact of this universe if you ignore the curvature of Earth.

And what theory requires this exactly?

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 am
Each step as quantified is assumed, as to quantify a phenomenon as one is to assume it as one is assumed.
Each step is the quantification of specific, movements based upon specific patterns with quantification being specification. The problem occurs in that in quantifying one reality you qualify another, in localizing one you approximate another.
I am not asking you to assume or approximate anything. I am asking you to DO the actual EXPERIMENT.

Stop typing, stop thinking, get off your keyboard and actually WALK.

1,2,3 steps forward.
1,2,3,4 steps left (or right)

You will be 1,2,3,4,5 steps away from where you started.

This is empirical
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 am
And what theory requires this exactly?
No theory requires this. Some practices require determining the length of a hypotenuse. For whatever reason.

x^2 + y^2 = z^2

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:27 am
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 am
Each step as quantified is assumed, as to quantify a phenomenon as one is to assume it as one is assumed.
Each step is the quantification of specific, movements based upon specific patterns with quantification being specification. The problem occurs in that in quantifying one reality you qualify another, in localizing one you approximate another.
I am not asking you to assume or approximate anything. I am asking you to DO the actual EXPERIMENT.

Stop typing, stop thinking, get off your keyboard and actually WALK.

1,2,3 steps forward.
1,2,3,4 steps left (or right)

You will be 1,2,3,4,5 steps away from where you started.

This is empirical

false it is assumed standard of quantification based upon an abstraction.

Each step can be longer or shorter than another. For a variety of reasons. I can be a dick and take 1 long step and 2 short steps and have a different grounding of measurement than a person who tries three of the same steps...this is taking out of the equation height, etc.. Quantification is approximation and proves my point.

One step can fit inside another step, thus the definition of a step becomes ambiguous and 1 step may be 5 steps elsewhere....these are all assumed starting points you are applying.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 am
And what theory requires this exactly?
No theory requires this. Some practices require determining the length of a hypotenuse. For whatever reason.

x^2 + y^2 = z^2

if no theory requires this then it has nothing to do with pythagoras now does it?

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:27 am
false it is assumed standard of quantification based upon an abstraction.
You ACTUALLY walking is not abstract.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:27 am
Each step can be longer or shorter than another. For a variety of reasons. I can be a dick and take 1 long step and 2 short steps and have a different grounding of measurement than a person who tries three of the same steps...this is taking out of the equation height, etc.. Quantification is approximation and proves my point.
I can also be a dick and leverage the law of large numbers. Don't do the experiment with 3,4 and 5 steps.
Do it with 3 billion, 4 billion and 5 billion steps.

Whatever variations you introduce into your steps will average out and won't matter in the end.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:39 am
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:27 am
false it is assumed standard of quantification based upon an abstraction.
You ACTUALLY walking is not abstract.

How it is quantified is...and those abstractions manifest in the physical distance.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:27 am
Each step can be longer or shorter than another. For a variety of reasons. I can be a dick and take 1 long step and 2 short steps and have a different grounding of measurement than a person who tries three of the same steps...this is taking out of the equation height, etc.. Quantification is approximation and proves my point.
I can also be a dick and leverage the law of large numbers. Don't do the experiment with 3,4 and 5 steps.
Do it with 3 billion, 4 billion and 5 billion steps.

Whatever variations you introduce into your steps will average out and won't matter in the end.

not really, because a bell curve necessitates that no step is the same and whatever means you use to quantify them really fail.

Then take into account the sample being taken is 1 context, ie one assumed starting point, that localizes one portion of reality....and your counting is just an assumption altogether. It is circular and self judging.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:39 am
not really, because a bell curve necessitates that no step is the same and whatever means you use to quantify them really fail.
Lolwhat? Do the experiment and convince yourself that you are wrong.

But since you are being an idiot. Try trillion instead of billion steps.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:46 am
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:39 am
not really, because a bell curve necessitates that no step is the same and whatever means you use to quantify them really fail.
Lolwhat? Do the experiment and convince yourself that you are wrong.

But since you are being an idiot. Try trillion instead of billion steps.
What an idiotic thing to say considering no human has ever walked that in a life time.

Second, the experiment only proves that each quantity is different than the other, a bell curve only shows the extreme variations 1 (through the step) can manifest and as such all counting is just pure assumption of a point.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:46 am
What an idiotic thing to say considering no human has ever walked that in a life time.
Then you better walk quickly?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:46 am
Second, the experiment only proves that each quantity is different than the other, a bell curve only shows the extreme variations 1 (through the step) can manifest and as such all counting is just pure assumption of a point.
Yeah. Stop smoking that shit

This is how the Central Limit Theorem works in practice: https://youtu.be/EvHiee7gs9Y?t=10

Whatever variance and however extreme - it normalises.

### Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:59 am
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:46 am
What an idiotic thing to say considering no human has ever walked that in a life time.
Then you better walk quickly?

quantify that for me. Long steps or short? Everything you say is assumed.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:46 am
Second, the experiment only proves that each quantity is different than the other, a bell curve only shows the extreme variations 1 (through the step) can manifest and as such all counting is just pure assumption of a point.
Yeah. Stop smoking that shit

This is how the Central Limit Theorem works in practice: https://youtu.be/EvHiee7gs9Y?t=10

Whatever variance and however extreme - it normalises.

Yeah 1 step as an average is composed of 1 trillion steps of various lengths...1 is thus always an approximation and counting is just an assumption of reality.