The Contradiction of Matter

[Scott Mayers]

Off tangent, if empiricism is that which is percieved through the senses, then what do the senses interpret other than matter? All forms are thus matter self referencing itself through newer and newer forms.

Reality is a thing in itself given it is self referencing through newer and newer forms. It is conditioned upon itself alone.

I agree. What Veritas is doing is POSTULATING the subject perceiving (oneself) AND the observations without permitting questioning. While this is fine for science, where science strictly politicizes observations [has agreement among all participants to the phenomena without question but by consensus alone.]

Note that Einstein had thought experiments on this and came up with 'relativity' of matter-to-matter as what is required. That is, he argued that if one is the ONLY thing in empty space as an 'observer', even as it 'matters' to the observer, nothing could be interpreted about itself nor of anything else. Thus, he argued that you at least require another 'matter' that requires you to 'observe' it as it to you.

This is the thought experiment of imagining how a spinning dancer or ice-skater alone cannot infer anything without a reference of another object. If you have two dancers that begin close, then 'evidence' of CHANGE requires noting how a spin should pull you apart, or that a push of each other moves them both away from their original position.

Since also physics adds that matter has 'mass AND resists change (with respect to other masses), gravity implied as a measure of mass cannot exist without two or more distinct masses and the very space it occupies as extant.

Since matter 'occupies' space, then space itself has to be real and cannot be explained outside of the abstraction of math (ie, logic). So this topic is rightfully not 'scientific' but philosophical metaphysics and is apriori to matter itself.

Space occupies space.

A circle is space.

What is around and within the circle is space.

Matter is the form, space, which emerges from space. Space results in space as space simultaneously multiplies and divides itself: cut a line in half and two whole lines result. Each line is a whole in itself and half compared to the original. The division of space is the multiplication of space.

My use of Absolute Nothing, is the form or backdrop that space itself, as points, represents. The difference is like that between the empty set and zero, in set theory.

I explain how space 'manifests' matter in my theory. But for the present argument matter can only be interpreted as existing BY matter, something I was helping your argument above with Veritas. The very term, "existence" has the prefix, "ex-", which means outside (of the observer). The "I-stance" is the observer that requires ANY outside factor in order to define itself reflexively. If one or the other exists alone, nothing can be inferred. [This is another reason I argue for the apriori state of an Absolute Nothing. It lacks substance because it is the 'foundation' of what anything may be or become.]

[Eodnhoj7]

I agree. What Veritas is doing is POSTULATING the subject perceiving (oneself) AND the observations without permitting questioning. While this is fine for science, where science strictly politicizes observations [has agreement among all participants to the phenomena without question but by consensus alone.]

Note that Einstein had thought experiments on this and came up with 'relativity' of matter-to-matter as what is required. That is, he argued that if one is the ONLY thing in empty space as an 'observer', even as it 'matters' to the observer, nothing could be interpreted about itself nor of anything else. Thus, he argued that you at least require another 'matter' that requires you to 'observe' it as it to you.

This is the thought experiment of imagining how a spinning dancer or ice-skater alone cannot infer anything without a reference of another object. If you have two dancers that begin close, then 'evidence' of CHANGE requires noting how a spin should pull you apart, or that a push of each other moves them both away from their original position.

Since also physics adds that matter has 'mass AND resists change (with respect to other masses), gravity implied as a measure of mass cannot exist without two or more distinct masses and the very space it occupies as extant.

Since matter 'occupies' space, then space itself has to be real and cannot be explained outside of the abstraction of math (ie, logic). So this topic is rightfully not 'scientific' but philosophical metaphysics and is apriori to matter itself.

Space occupies space.

A circle is space.

What is around and within the circle is space.

Matter is the form, space, which emerges from space. Space results in space as space simultaneously multiplies and divides itself: cut a line in half and two whole lines result. Each line is a whole in itself and half compared to the original. The division of space is the multiplication of space.

My use of Absolute Nothing, is the form or backdrop that space itself, as points, represents. The difference is like that between the empty set and zero, in set theory.

I explain how space 'manifests' matter in my theory. But for the present argument matter can only be interpreted as existing BY matter, something I was helping your argument above with Veritas. The very term, "existence" has the prefix, "ex-", which means outside (of the observer). The "I-stance" is the observer that requires ANY outside factor in order to define itself reflexively. If one or the other exists alone, nothing can be inferred. [This is another reason I argue for the apriori state of an Absolute Nothing. It lacks substance because it is the 'foundation' of what anything may be or become.]

I think we are on the same page for the most part. I would argue void is space negating itself to further space much in the same manner a point negates itself into a line yet this line is the encapsualtion of void. Considering all perspectives begin with void, all observation is void voiding itself into being thus necessitating all being, as emergent from void, is self reflective. The I, as grounded in void through its assumptive nature, observes itself self reflectively through nothing. This self reflection manifests one phenomenon into another, the subjective self negates to an objective "I" where the viewpoint multiplies.

[Scott Mayers]

I think we are on the same page for the most part. I would argue void is space negating itself to further space much in the same manner a point negates itself into a line yet this line is the encapsualtion of void. Considering all perspectives begin with void, all observation is void voiding itself into being thus necessitating all being, as emergent from void, is self reflective. The I, as grounded in void through its assumptive nature, observes itself self reflectively through nothing. This self reflection manifests one phenomenon into another, the subjective self negates to an objective "I" where the viewpoint multiplies.

I figured as much given what you say. Ironically, your thread(s) on "no nothing" and mind for "only nothing" appear at odds but I actually understand your meaning but likely lack the same means of expressing it. [That's why I haven't challenged you but kept to others' responses.]

On this interpretation (yours), I in a different explanation, assert that since a strict state of non-existence (an Absolute Nothing) IS CONTRADICTORY relative to 'consistency', then we can interpret the very contradiction as feedbacking on itself which manifests reality.

I think your approach begins 'continuously' where mine is most 'discrete'. I begin with discrete logic/math and go towards explaining the continuity. Calculus, the math of 'continuity' has also begun mostly from 'discrete' concepts too, like sets, and THEN demonstrates how it leads to continuous factors, like infinites and infinitesimals. I'm not sure how you can argue beginning with the complexity without defining (making finite) a quantized simpler unit. But your use of 'points' or lines is a kind of intuitive motivating step to rationalizing space that I understand.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think we are on the same page for the most part. I would argue void is space negating itself to further space much in the same manner a point negates itself into a line yet this line is the encapsualtion of void. Considering all perspectives begin with void, all observation is void voiding itself into being thus necessitating all being, as emergent from void, is self reflective. The I, as grounded in void through its assumptive nature, observes itself self reflectively through nothing. This self reflection manifests one phenomenon into another, the subjective self negates to an objective "I" where the viewpoint multiplies.

I figured as much given what you say. Ironically, your thread(s) on "no nothing" and mind for "only nothing" appear at odds but I actually understand your meaning but likely lack the same means of expressing it. [That's why I haven't challenged you but kept to others' responses.]

On this interpretation (yours), I in a different explanation, assert that since a strict state of non-existence (an Absolute Nothing) IS CONTRADICTORY relative to 'consistency', then we can interpret the very contradiction as feedbacking on itself which manifests reality.

I think your approach begins 'continuously' where mine is most 'discrete'. I begin with discrete logic/math and go towards explaining the continuity. Calculus, the math of 'continuity' has also begun mostly from 'discrete' concepts too, like sets, and THEN demonstrates how it leads to continuous factors, like infinites and infinitesimals. I'm not sure how you can argue beginning with the complexity without defining (making finite) a quantized simpler unit. But your use of 'points' or lines is a kind of intuitive motivating step to rationalizing space that I understand.

Yeah, I think we are on the same page but use different starting points about the point (pardon the pun).

[nemos]

Just a few thoughts on matter.
Without claiming any truth,
- I understand matter as a material from which something can be made, even if it is only dreams and longings.
- Anything that interacts with us, directly or indirectly, is either matter or has a property that is inherent in it and characterises it.
- If something does not interact with us, even indirectly, then it does not exist for us, and is in principle not worth discussing.

One of the inherent properties of matter is its tendency to organise itself - into elementary particles, atoms, ..., nebulae, stars and galaxies, ...
I don't know if anyone has thought about the density of such an organisation ?
Intuitively, I find such a density of organisation quite interesting, because at a certain value of such density, life could arise, and by increasing the density of organisation one could still get consciousness - as one of the properties of matter.

[Age]

The same matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist is the same matter which is responsible for illusion. Matter thus contradicts itself.

But 'matter' is NOT 'responsible' for illusion, itself.

A 'experiencing' body, and 'thinking' being, is 'responsible' for what APPEARS.

If some 'thing' APPEARS, but which TURNS OUT TO BE an 'illusion', then 'this' is CAUSED BY an 'experiencing thinking being'.

By the way, WHY are 'you' "eodnoj7" so, PERSONALLY, determined to FIGHT FOR and 'argue' that Everything IS A CONTRADICTION?

Can 'you' NOT SEE that 'trying to' 'argue' or 'fight' FOR 'this' MEANS that 'you' ARE CONTRADICTION "your" 'self'?

And, A 'self-contradiction' is NOT some 'thing' that most people will AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. So, 'you' may well END UP on 'your OWN' and ALONE here. Which would DEFINITELY DEFEAT the purpose of CONTINUALLY SHARING 'your OWN PERSONAL views' here, right?

[Age]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

The human mind is determined by the brain,

When your FIRST premise starts out False AND Wrong, then the rest that follows is NOT going to do so SOUNDLY.

the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms.

But IS so-called 'empirical truth', ACTUALLY, the foundation for knowledge?

To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

AND IS 'thought', itself, made up of matter?

If yes, then what, ACTUAL, proof do you have for SAID CLAIM?

[Age]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

The human mind is determined by the brain, the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms. To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

Nope, it is very ignorant of you to state the human mind is determined from matter.

WHY is it WHENEVER "another" SAYS or CLAIMS some 'thing', which 'you', "veritas aequitas", do NOT AGREE WITH, then it is 'them' who IS 'ignorant' or 'VERY IGNORANT'?

Are 'you' EVER 'ignorant'?

If yes, then WHEN, EXACTLY?

But if no, then HOW do 'you' KNOW, FOR SURE?

The human mind is conditioned upon the brain, the body, human evolution and the Universe.

The human mind merely emerge from the above conditions without a final cause.

The theory of matter -Philosophical Materialism - has long been destroyed by George Berkeley.
Do you even have a idea of this point?

NO.

WILL 'you' EXPLAIN FOR 'me'?

The ANSWER IS ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NO.

[Age]