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

[Eodnhoj7]

My example of 'what is not assumed' can be proven to be true, therefore it is some thing not assumed.

You can't prove a negative, except via assumption.

Prove that I don't believe you are an idiot.

You can prove a negative only through a positive, thus requiring all negatives to be grades of a positive leaving only positive existing in a multiplicitous state.

[Skepdick]

You can prove a negative only through a positive, thus requiring all negatives to be grades of a positive leaving only positive existing in a multiplicitous state.

The exact same thing can be said inversely.

You can prove a positive only through a negative, thus requiring all positives to be grades of a negative leaving only negatives existing in a multiplicitous state.

Via negativa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic ... definition

It's the epistemological way.

[Eodnhoj7]

You can prove a negative only through a positive, thus requiring all negatives to be grades of a positive leaving only positive existing in a multiplicitous state.

The exact same thing can be said inversely.

You can prove a positive only through a negative, thus requiring all positives to be grades of a negative leaving only negatives existing in a multiplicitous state.

Via negativa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic ... definition

It's the epistemological way.

Agreed, but it points to the Munchauseen trillema as "proof through definition".

[Age]

My example of 'what is not assumed' can be proven to be true, therefore it is some thing not assumed.

You can't prove a negative, except via assumption.

Prove that I don't believe you are an idiot.

Why would I want to prove that?

If it is true, then it is true.

And, if it is true, then it is not assumed anyway.

Besides that, I enjoy you believing that anyway, so why is said to be a negative?

[Age]

"Wrong and incorrect from your perspective anyway" is a subject point of awareness, it is assumed on your part.

If some thing can be proven to be true, then it is not assumed.

My example of 'what is not assumed' can be proven to be true, therefore it is some thing not assumed.

False, the proof is assumed as is...as a state of connected axioms that define the properties of a phenomenon.

If you say it is false and provide a known factual true reason for this, then it MUST BE true, and therefore not assumed.

If my example of 'what is not assumed' is factually false, then that means there IS some thing not assumed.

See, the trouble you are going to have is this; If you try to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed. And, If you do prove my example is false, then it is true that not every thing is assumed. However, and this where you will come unstuck, If you do not prove my example is false, then not every thing is assumed.

So, now the question is; How do you get out of this situation?

By the way, you have not yet shown if you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is yet. Do you even know what my example is?

[Eodnhoj7]

If some thing can be proven to be true, then it is not assumed.

My example of 'what is not assumed' can be proven to be true, therefore it is some thing not assumed.

False, the proof is assumed as is...as a state of connected axioms that define the properties of a phenomenon.

If you say it is false and provide a known factual true reason for this, then it MUST BE true, and therefore not assumed.

You are assuming a definition for fact.

If my example of 'what is not assumed' is factually false, then that means there IS some thing not assumed.

An absence of assumption is a disconnect between assumptions, thus necessitating assumptions still existing.

For example, If I do not assume anything I continually analyze and define them...I progress from one assumption to another to another, thus negating one assumption for another.

See, the trouble you are going to have is this; If you try to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed. And, If you do prove my example is false, then it is true that not every thing is assumed. However, and this where you will come unstuck, If you do not prove my example is false, then not every thing is assumed.

So, now the question is; How do you get out of this situation?

I really dont have to because you are assuming a definition for proof noone else is completely aware of. Your argument about not all is assumed is grounded in assumptions.

And absense of assumption is merely disconnected assumptions as stated earlier. This would be equivalent to particles in a void. The particles appear disconnected but in reality all that exists as particles, the void is strictly an observation of multiple particles.

By the way, you have not yet shown if you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is yet. Do you even know what my example is?

I have if you actually read it. Copy and paste the examples, as well as my responses, or you are just flat lying out of fear. Face it everything you believe is an assumption.

[Arising_uk]

Yeah, it's trivial to construct a logical system in which his claim is true using many-sorted logic.

You simply put all instances of the Unicorn-pattern into a Unicorn sort.

real-unicorns ∈ Unicorn-sort
toy-unicorns ∈ Unicorn-sort
concept-unicorns-in-Skepdick-head ∈ Unicorn-sort
concept-unicorns-in-Arising_uk-head ∈ Unicorn-sort

If you've never heard of the concept of "unicorn" before, then unicorn-pattern don't exist in your head, but it exist in mine.
Real unicorns don't exist, but toy unicorns do. They are all Unicorns. ...

Sure, apart from the real-unicorns that is.

So from the perspective of a 3rd observer "unicorns both exist and don't" is true. ...

Which of course it isn't unless of course you decide a rhinoceros is one or you include imaginary-unicorns.

Information-patterns are the same things as Platonic forms.

No idea.

Yes. Some instances of the unicorn pattern exist. Some instances of unicorn pattern don't exist. ...

And the same unicorn pattern cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

It does't have to. It uses sets/types/sorts (categorization) - as soon as you place one concept in multiple categories, you've committed equivocation. ...

Where does PL use sets or types or sorts?

That's why all dualism explodes.

No idea why you think PL is dualistic, although not sure what you mean by 'dualistic' in this case?
p.s.
Ah! You mean in the semantics of assigning T or F to a proposition?

[Age]

False, the proof is assumed as is...as a state of connected axioms that define the properties of a phenomenon.

If you say it is false and provide a known factual true reason for this, then it MUST BE true, and therefore not assumed.

You are assuming a definition for fact.

But I am NOT the one assuming any thing here. YOU ARE. If you believe what I said is false, then you MUST HAVE some thing for this belief. What are you basing this 'false' conclusion on exactly, facts, truth, beliefs, assumptions, any thing else?

If my example of 'what is not assumed' is factually false, then that means there IS some thing not assumed.

An absence of assumption is a disconnect between assumptions, thus necessitating assumptions still existing.

For example, If I do not assume anything I continually analyze and define them...I progress from one assumption to another to another, thus negating one assumption for another.

You can TRY to deflect from, and/or TRY to confuse the issue, but the Truth IS you have either proved with factual evidence, which must be not assumed, or you have not.

Either way is perfectly fine with me. My point still stands.

See, the trouble you are going to have is this; If you try to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed. And, If you do prove my example is false, then it is true that not every thing is assumed. However, and this where you will come unstuck, If you do not prove my example is false, then not every thing is assumed.

So, now the question is; How do you get out of this situation?

I really dont have to because you are assuming a definition for proof noone else is completely aware of. Your argument about not all is assumed is grounded in assumptions.

And absense of assumption is merely disconnected assumptions as stated earlier. This would be equivalent to particles in a void. The particles appear disconnected but in reality all that exists as particles, the void is strictly an observation of multiple particles.


1. I am NOT assuming a definition for proof noone else is completely aware of. All I have done is to provide an example of 'what is not assumed'. If any one is aware of it or not is another matter.

2. You are still blinded by your own beliefs. I have NEVER even attempted to formulate an argument about not all is assumed. You keep seeing things that are not even here, but this is how the human brain works. Anyway, I have no need to make an argument. You asked me to provide an example of 'what is not assumed', I provided example. You have, so far, failed to refute said example, and from what I have observed you have failed to even recognise said example. But, if you have, then you could easily prove me wrong here.

3. 'An absence of assumptions' is some term just used to try to deflect. The rest of what you wrote, besides not making sense to me, is also completely off topic, anyway.
.

By the way, you have not yet shown if you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is yet. Do you even know what my example is?

I have if you actually read it. Copy and paste the examples, as well as my responses, or you are just flat lying out of fear. Face it everything you believe is an assumption.

1. If you do know what my example is that I provided, then you could easily prove this by just showing my example.

2. You asking me to copy and paste my example here now, could be seen to be evidence that you still do not know what it is. Some might even take you attempting me to get me to provide my own example again here now as proof of this.

3. What do you propose I have to fear here? I am NOT arguing for any thing here.YOU ARE. So, there is nothing for me to fear.

You just asked for an example of some thing. I just provided an example. If you did not or can not see my example, then that works in my favour, AND, if you can see it, then that works in my favour as well because as I stated earlier, if you do refute the example itself, then you prove what the example alludes to. Even if you try to refute my example, then this is further proof that what my example is saying is true. And, if you can not refute it, then it stands, that is; as some thing that is not assumed. I really do not have absolutely any thing to fear..

4. If you believe I am lying, then what exactly is it that you believe I am lying about?

5. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

If you say it is false and provide a known factual true reason for this, then it MUST BE true, and therefore not assumed.

You are assuming a definition for fact.

But I am NOT the one assuming any thing here. YOU ARE. If you believe what I said is false, then you MUST HAVE some thing for this belief. What are you basing this 'false' conclusion on exactly, facts, truth, beliefs, assumptions, any thing else?

If my example of 'what is not assumed' is factually false, then that means there IS some thing not assumed.

An absence of assumption is a disconnect between assumptions, thus necessitating assumptions still existing.

For example, If I do not assume anything I continually analyze and define them...I progress from one assumption to another to another, thus negating one assumption for another.

You can TRY to deflect from, and/or TRY to confuse the issue, but the Truth IS you have either proved with factual evidence, which must be not assumed, or you have not.

Either way is perfectly fine with me. My point still stands.

See, the trouble you are going to have is this; If you try to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed. And, If you do prove my example is false, then it is true that not every thing is assumed. However, and this where you will come unstuck, If you do not prove my example is false, then not every thing is assumed.

So, now the question is; How do you get out of this situation?

I really dont have to because you are assuming a definition for proof noone else is completely aware of. Your argument about not all is assumed is grounded in assumptions.

And absense of assumption is merely disconnected assumptions as stated earlier. This would be equivalent to particles in a void. The particles appear disconnected but in reality all that exists as particles, the void is strictly an observation of multiple particles.


1. I am NOT assuming a definition for proof noone else is completely aware of. All I have done is to provide an example of 'what is not assumed'. If any one is aware of it or not is another matter.

2. You are still blinded by your own beliefs. I have NEVER even attempted to formulate an argument about not all is assumed. You keep seeing things that are not even here, but this is how the human brain works. Anyway, I have no need to make an argument. You asked me to provide an example of 'what is not assumed', I provided example. You have, so far, failed to refute said example, and from what I have observed you have failed to even recognise said example. But, if you have, then you could easily prove me wrong here.

3. 'An absence of assumptions' is some term just used to try to deflect. The rest of what you wrote, besides not making sense to me, is also completely off topic, anyway.
.

By the way, you have not yet shown if you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is yet. Do you even know what my example is?

I have if you actually read it. Copy and paste the examples, as well as my responses, or you are just flat lying out of fear. Face it everything you believe is an assumption.

1. If you do know what my example is that I provided, then you could easily prove this by just showing my example.

2. You asking me to copy and paste my example here now, could be seen to be evidence that you still do not know what it is. Some might even take you attempting me to get me to provide my own example again here now as proof of this.

3. What do you propose I have to fear here? I am NOT arguing for any thing here.YOU ARE. So, there is nothing for me to fear.

You just asked for an example of some thing. I just provided an example. If you did not or can not see my example, then that works in my favour, AND, if you can see it, then that works in my favour as well because as I stated earlier, if you do refute the example itself, then you prove what the example alludes to. Even if you try to refute my example, then this is further proof that what my example is saying is true. And, if you can not refute it, then it stands, that is; as some thing that is not assumed. I really do not have absolutely any thing to fear..

4. If you believe I am lying, then what exactly is it that you believe I am lying about?

5. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I want you to copy and paste your example because my answers are with it...

You are right about point 5, because you assume it all... lol.

[Skepdick]

Sure, apart from the real-unicorns that is.
Which of course it isn't unless of course you decide a rhinoceros is one or you include imaginary-unicorns.

The point is, that if real-unicorns were to actually exist somewhere in this Universe - you would be able to recognize them if you saw them.
Because the concept-unicorn is your conceptual space. It's your referent.

Which of course it isn't unless of course you decide a rhinoceros is one or you include imaginary-unicorns.

You wouldn't be able to recognize a grobmunf if you ever saw one, because a grobmunf is exists in my conceptual space, but not yours.

And the same unicorn pattern cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

The grombunf pattern exists in my head, but not in yours.

Where does PL use sets or types or sorts?

PL doesn't. Human thoughts expressed in English do. The same object can be counted in multiple different, heterogenous categories.

A cat is an animal.
A cat is a mammal.
A cat is a pet.
A cat is a carnivore.
A plant is a carnivore.
A plant is a pest.

No idea why you think PL is dualistic, although not sure what you mean by 'dualistic' in this case?
p.s.
Ah! You mean in the semantics of assigning T or F to a proposition?

Basically - yes. If you are applying the principle of charity, then you must assume that (semantically) truth is being spoken.
Which leaves you with re-constructing the kind of cognitive structure that might make somebody utter that sentence.
If red flags are firing in your head, then immediately 2 hypotheses emerge

A. Ignoramus
B. Expert (I am far behind)

The rest of communication is figuring out which is which.

There is a 3rd hypothesis - liar. If you ever arrive here, the principle of charity becomes null-and-void.

[Age]

1. If you do know what my example is that I provided, then you could easily prove this by just showing my example.

2. You asking me to copy and paste my example here now, could be seen to be evidence that you still do not know what it is. Some might even take you attempting me to get me to provide my own example again here now as proof of this.

3. What do you propose I have to fear here? I am NOT arguing for any thing here.YOU ARE. So, there is nothing for me to fear.

You just asked for an example of some thing. I just provided an example. If you did not or can not see my example, then that works in my favour, AND, if you can see it, then that works in my favour as well because as I stated earlier, if you do refute the example itself, then you prove what the example alludes to. Even if you try to refute my example, then this is further proof that what my example is saying is true. And, if you can not refute it, then it stands, that is; as some thing that is not assumed. I really do not have absolutely any thing to fear..

4. If you believe I am lying, then what exactly is it that you believe I am lying about?

5. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I want you to copy and paste your example because my answers are with it...

But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.

You are right about point 5, because you assume it all... lol.

Just because I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing then that does NOT logical follow nor mean that I have to assume any thing at all. I can still just remain OPEN, looking at and seeing the Truth of things instead.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. If you do know what my example is that I provided, then you could easily prove this by just showing my example.

2. You asking me to copy and paste my example here now, could be seen to be evidence that you still do not know what it is. Some might even take you attempting me to get me to provide my own example again here now as proof of this.

3. What do you propose I have to fear here? I am NOT arguing for any thing here.YOU ARE. So, there is nothing for me to fear.

You just asked for an example of some thing. I just provided an example. If you did not or can not see my example, then that works in my favour, AND, if you can see it, then that works in my favour as well because as I stated earlier, if you do refute the example itself, then you prove what the example alludes to. Even if you try to refute my example, then this is further proof that what my example is saying is true. And, if you can not refute it, then it stands, that is; as some thing that is not assumed. I really do not have absolutely any thing to fear..

4. If you believe I am lying, then what exactly is it that you believe I am lying about?

5. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I want you to copy and paste your example because my answers are with it...

But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.

False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.

You are right about point 5, because you assume it all... lol.

Just because I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing then that does NOT logical follow nor mean that I have to assume any thing at all. I can still just remain OPEN, looking at and seeing the Truth of things instead.

Yeah, taking reality as is...assumption.

Copy and paste with my responses or shut up.

[Age]

I want you to copy and paste your example because my answers are with it...

But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.

False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.

What do you assume that my supposed and alleged assumptions are disconnected from exactly?

You are right about point 5, because you assume it all... lol.

Just because I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing then that does NOT logical follow nor mean that I have to assume any thing at all. I can still just remain OPEN, looking at and seeing the Truth of things instead.

Yeah, taking reality as is...assumption.

If you KNEW how to 'take reality AS IS', then you would KNOW 'what reality REALLY IS'. If you KNOW what reality REALLT IS, then 'reality' is not really assumed. Thus, no assumption.

Now, you could assume what reality is, which is what you obviously do do, but also obvious is your assumption could be completely wrong.

Copy and paste with my responses or shut up.

Why?

Is it impossible for you to do it?

You have not shown any evidence that you are even aware of my example of 'what is not assumed', so maybe that is why you want me to do it for you?

Also, is telling me to "shut up" your last resort?

You want to assert that every thing is assumed, but obviously you can not prove this. Whereas I can and have already proved that not every thing is assumed. It now appears that you do not like this fact, but the only come back you have left now is; "shut up".

[Arising_uk]

The point is, that if real-unicorns were to actually exist somewhere in this Universe - you would be able to recognize them if you saw them.
Because the concept-unicorn is your conceptual space. It's your referent. ...

And I take your point although prefer to just use the "idea".

You wouldn't be able to recognize a grobmunf if you ever saw one, because a grobmunf is exists in my conceptual space, but not yours. ...

Well I'd not be able to put the word "grobmunf " upon it if I ever saw one but I'd certainly see one if it exists. But I do agree that words can carve up what we perceive as is a "stream" the same as a "brook", is a "river" the same as a "rivière", is a "copse" the same as a "taillis"?

The grombunf pattern exists in my head, but not in yours. ...

Well it's an idea in your head and now its one in mine but just in case I run across one in my travels could you describe it a bit more please.

PL doesn't. Human thoughts expressed in English do. The same object can be counted in multiple different, heterogenous categories.

A cat is an animal.
A cat is a mammal.
A cat is a pet.
A cat is a carnivore.
A plant is a carnivore.
A plant is a pest. ...

Which I guess is why the Quantifiers and Predicate Logic were invented.

Basically - yes. If you are applying the principle of charity, then you must assume that (semantically) truth is being spoken.
Which leaves you with re-constructing the kind of cognitive structure that might make somebody utter that sentence.
If red flags are firing in your head, then immediately 2 hypotheses emerge

A. Ignoramus
B. Expert (I am far behind)

The rest of communication is figuring out which is which.

There is a 3rd hypothesis - liar. If you ever arrive here, the principle of charity becomes null-and-void.

But the propositions of PL are declarative ones so they are true or false, how we decide they are is not a matter for PL. Unless of course they are tautologies or contradictions then it is easy.

[Eodnhoj7]

But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.

False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.

What do you assume that my supposed and alleged assumptions are disconnected from exactly?



Just because I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing then that does NOT logical follow nor mean that I have to assume any thing at all. I can still just remain OPEN, looking at and seeing the Truth of things instead.

Yeah, taking reality as is...assumption.

If you KNEW how to 'take reality AS IS', then you would KNOW 'what reality REALLY IS'. If you KNOW what reality REALLT IS, then 'reality' is not really assumed. Thus, no assumption.

Now, you could assume what reality is, which is what you obviously do do, but also obvious is your assumption could be completely wrong.

Copy and paste with my responses or shut up.

Why?

Is it impossible for you to do it?

You have not shown any evidence that you are even aware of my example of 'what is not assumed', so maybe that is why you want me to do it for you?

Also, is telling me to "shut up" your last resort?

You want to assert that every thing is assumed, but obviously you can not prove this. Whereas I can and have already proved that not every thing is assumed. It now appears that you do not like this fact, but the only come back you have left now is; "shut up".

You said I ignored your examples: I want you to copy and paste the responses...otherwise "shut up because you are a liar" is the next best option.

You assume everything, by neither believe nor not belief, where reality is taken as is. Taken as is, means it is both defined and undefined as definition and definition are how reality manifests itself.