Models versus Reality...

[Scott Mayers]

Modern language is distinct from reality...

That makes no sense whatsoever.

"I think therefore I am." This is the single greatest claptrap ever issued from the mouth of man. It's right up there with "the mind is composed of the id, ego, and super ego" or "I'll still respect you in the morning". It is self serving nonsense. In ancient language it would have to be expressed as "amun is the son of thot through khepre" which breaks every rule of grammar and is an absurdity of the highest order. It's equivalent to "man (I) create(s) reality through the ability to supercede cause and effect". Of course you can't really translate ancient and modern language. Even if you could ideas get twisted in translations.

There is no "reality" in modern language even though we try to relate reality to our perceptions. We read the geiger counter and try to report the reality.

"I think therefore I am" is intended to mean that the subjective observer (reader, for instance) is the least we can ALL agree to semantically. Ones who believe that subjective reality is not real or irrelevant ignores that anything that can be determined objectively is just actually a group of subjective observers who convened to democratically agree to what they share in common. Descartes' method is a kind of minimalist Occam's Razor to the extreme. So it is a clever and useful intellectual tool to communicate how the readers can act as the very subjects participating in as observers to an experiment using thoughts.

On language origins, we reconstruct the past, not only using the direct evidence connecting us to that past, but to indirect applications of our present capacity of other factors in our present living environment. For instance, knowing that I can walk and speak allows me to assume this is the nature of people in the past too. I can thus use all of what I know is 'true' about my present capacities to interpret what should exist in the past. Of course we evolved from some point in the past without language or walking capacities. But knowing how evolution works, we also know that at least for discussing our past in terms of civilization, it is relatively too short a time in evolutionary terms to require interpreting the ancients as being significantly different in many capacities. Thus, for the instance I gave above, I can assume that humans walked and spoke in the past in at least some commonly similar ways in Ancient Egypt.

[Scott Mayers]

To me, that minimum premise is to assume Nothingness as an origin and show how this leads to all that exists through the motivator of its own "contradiction"

This statement makes my blood run cold so I can only hope I've misunderstood you. You're surely not suggesting that the universe has an origin and this origin is Nothing. Larry Krauss is a charming enough bloke but perhaps not the first mentor who should spring to mind when it comes to matters of metaphysical ratiocination.

I already understand that you posit time as all that exists so can't help you understand without your acceptance of static factors, like that space exists as a real entity. Yes, I posit that nothingness itself is needed to understand our origin.

Assume absolute Nothingness. Since it is assumed 'true', if it were 'true' of actual reality prior to our reflection on it, its nature would be indistinguishable from being pure Oneness as well. This contradiction is all that nature requires to initiate itself. Since Nothingness and Oneness compete (contradict) for the same 'place' (a universe), it keeps the Nothingness and Oneness (=> Somethingness) in distinct dimensions within a larger 'place' in a dynamic-like way. If One thing and No things exist, we have at least Two things that exist and can uniquely qualify this fact as another unique truth that exists in totality too. Thus Nothingness, Oneness, and Twoness also exist. This unfolding of 'facts' of nature are the very laws of nature and of its logic itself. Note that while you could see the dynamic nature of this as 'cause to effect', this does not yet mean that 'time' pre-exists. All of this can occur to totality instantaneously or without time. Each prior 'cause' itself only refers to the nature of dependency of it to the 'effect', even though they aren't actually time related. In fact, to nature, it doesn't matter where you 'start' from. You could assume that you start with say, Twoness, as the only thing that exists, then you deduce Oneness, then Nothingness going backwards in a common way. Totality could also start with an infinite set of truths and still find connection back to Nothingness. It is the way these things ideas connect rationally which describe the reality, not where you arbitrarily 'start' because 'time' with respect to totality is completely known by it indistinguishable as being a point too.

[The Inglorious One]

To me, that minimum premise is to assume Nothingness as an origin and show how this leads to all that exists through the motivator of its own "contradiction".

I'm with you on this 100%, but probably in a different way than you mean it and for different reasons.

How do we distinguish between Nothing and an undifferentiated, infinite One? Answer: because there are no distinguishing characteristics, we don't. Can it be that tension between the Nothing/One is the motivator? If so, any motion would reflect back upon itself like Indra's net (a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of interdependent origination and the interconnectedness of all things.

Cladking, your romantic ideas about the ancients and language is contradicted by the fact many ancients had two names: a public name and a secret name. Their secret name was their real name and they kept it secret because they believed someone knowing it would give that person power over them.

[The Inglorious One]

Never mind, Scott. You were ahead of me. I didn't read your post until after I posted mine.

Damn. I thought I was the only one in the whole wide world who thought nothing is necessary to understand the origin of something. I would go so far as to say that at least hypothetically, every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge in an indivisible One that is indistinguishable from nothingness itself.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. The causal interconnectedness of all things is a fundamental feature of the universe and it has nothing to do with Nothingness. It is an entirely physical truth which is a property of the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time. The motion of every single entity in the universe with mass affects change in the motion of every other entity in the universe with mass. This is an absolute FACT, and a completely uncontroversial one, and it is also a central point to be understood in a quest for a Theory of Everything. Sadly physics has a long track record for ignoring truths hidden in plain sight because this particular truth is completely ignored in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. No wonder it makes no fucking sense.

[The Inglorious One]

Leo, do you in any way, shape or form posit an Absolute?

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, do you in any way, shape or form posit an Absolute?

An absolute what?

[The Inglorious One]

Leo, do you in any way, shape or form posit an Absolute?

An absolute what?

Nevermind. That tells me you have your feet firmly planted on thin air.

[Obvious Leo]

An absolute what? The word "absolute" is an adjective and has no meaning without a referent.

Do you posit the existence of a pink?

[Scott Mayers]

An absolute what? The word "absolute" is an adjective and has no meaning without a referent.

Do you posit the existence of a pink?

You CAN ask, "Do you posit the existence of a pink x, such that x is variable," though. And absolute can also refer to that which 'holds' the variability factor like the hardwired capacity of a computer memory to hold either a one or a zero. "An absolute" therefore refers to the formulaic representation using a variable to stand for its own unit. That is an absolute x exists such that it is defined as either a one or a zero. You can extend this variable meaning to an infinite possibilities too. If at least some y is pink, then 'pink' exists as some absolute. We don't always add in speech the quantifiers but it is still implied. A 'pink' existence, thus is translates as 'pink z', where 'z' is the variable (as a verb) and 'pink'(ness) is the static unit of measure (as a noun). Notice how your claim above reverses your perspective elsewhere? Above you seem to recognize that an adjective requires a referent akin to a real space. The adjective acts as an active verbal to give the referent new life or meaning. Any absolute thus requires a variable and vice versa.

[Obvious Leo]

No doubt such gobbledegook might pass for profound wisdom is the opinion of some, Scott, but in Australian English the word "absolute" is a fucking ADJECTIVE.

[Scott Mayers]

No doubt such gobbledegook might pass for profound wisdom is the opinion of some, Scott, but in Australian English the word "absolute" is a fucking ADJECTIVE.

"Adjective" is from "ad-" (to add), "jecture" (to throw out), and "-ive" to indicate its connection to nouns and give the term an extended meaning.

"An absolute" is implied by readers including Australian English to mean "any absolute (x)" where x stands for any contingent and variable reality as a noun. Maybe you prefer the that I use "fixed standard" or a "constant" instead?

[cladking]

On language origins, we reconstruct the past, not only using the direct evidence connecting us to that past, but to indirect applications of our present capacity of other factors in our present living environment. For instance, knowing that I can walk and speak allows me to assume this is the nature of people in the past too. I can thus use all of what I know is 'true' about my present capacities to interpret what should exist in the past. Of course we evolved from some point in the past without language or walking capacities. But knowing how evolution works, we also know that at least for discussing our past in terms of civilization, it is relatively too short a time in evolutionary terms to require interpreting the ancients as being significantly different in many capacities. Thus, for the instance I gave above, I can assume that humans walked and spoke in the past in at least some commonly similar ways in Ancient Egypt.

Our society functions so well speaking gobbledty gook that it's easy to assume any society
could. I have extreme doubt that in the days before agriculture and drug stores that peo-
ple could survive at all without having good communication. Indeed, how do they invent
theory that gives rise to agriculture and cities without science of some sort. What people
don't realize today is that Egyptology teaches us the pyramid builders spoke only in incom-
prehesible nonsense involving gods and magic which they themselves believed were used
to build pyramids. It's impossible this could be correct, I believe. Equally inconsistently
Egyptologists believe that the ancients dragged 6 1/2 million tons of tomb up a ramp but
the word "ramp" is unattested and no direct evidence of any sort supports the tomb "theory".

Of course we're the same as the builders and our humanity is the same but this doesn't
mean we think like they did or speak like they did. Since we obviously don't understand their
writing there's no reason tothink we do.

"I think therefore I am" is intended to mean that the subjective observer (reader, for instance) is the least we can ALL agree to semantically. Ones who believe that subjective reality is not real or irrelevant ignores that anything that can be determined objectively is just actually a group of subjective observers who convened to democratically agree to what they share in common. Descartes' method is a kind of minimalist Occam's Razor to the extreme. So it is a clever and useful intellectual tool to communicate how the readers can act as the very subjects participating in as observers to an experiment using thoughts.

[/quote]

Even in my dreams people say "I think therefore I am". One time when I was ten a bird said
it. I'm hardly swayed by the argument on any level at all.

We must accept that reality is as it appears or there is no foundation. Yes, thought is individual
and proves our own existence in a sense but it doesn't prove reality or that reality is as it seems.
In reality it's unlikely a bird would ponder such an inanity; I presume it woiuld have better things
to do if it had many generations of accumulated knowledge.

"I think therefore I am" is merely a statement that reflects language use in the brain. It has no real
meaning and little or no utility. It is the sort of thinking that underlies metaphysics and as such
is part of the problem in progress today. I thinkpeople should keep in mind that we can't rule
out the possibility that the statement is false but in our ignorance we can't know it. What we need
here is science rather than catch phrases that are essentially claptrap.

[cladking]

You sound like you're prepping to sell us a future book, perhaps titled, "The Ancient Supremacy of Wisdom through their Language" by Cladking.

My primary interest is in establishing as fact how the pyramid was actually built; it was built
in steps and then pulled up one step at a time using counterweights full of water. Ive studied
metaphysics since a young age and was able to recognize the metaphysics that is the ancient
language and this was instrumental in fleshing out how the pyramids were built.

I've long been interested in writing a book "The Nature of Man" but I'm beginning to think it will
never happen.

Ancient language wasn't "superior" but only because it couldn't contain modern knowledge. Peo-
ple simply don't think this way any longer so it can't be brought back except, perhaps, as a com-
puter language. I might publish a reinterpretation/ retranslation of the PT some day.

You confuse the literal means to which language is communicated to its semantic meaning. Models are the symbols that act as pointers to reality and distinct from the actual symbols. We are stuck to using symbols to communicate anything whether real OR fiction. This just means that some of our symbols map to reality while some map to fiction. Thus reality is still understood to us through symbols unless you actually could be at (or even made of) the very objects/acts of nature we speak of. In other words, you'd have to be able to at least always be in the presence of anything you speak of (or should actually BE that thing) in order to actually 100% communicate what objective reality is. We are stuck with defaulting to symbols [or models, or formulas] to actually interpret reality through them. Thus we have to accept this and interpret all our reality as indistinguishable from ideas.

What you say is largely true but only because of the way modern language works. It certainly
doesn't apply to computer code and ancient language was more similar to it. Language leads us
to use these models and science exascerbates the building of models due to the fact we think
in language and due to both metaphysics and the complexity of scientific results.

You also seem to be thinking that my own defense of this implies that there is such thing as being able to magically use words, like "abracadabra", to make nature obey our whims. This is NOT what I argue here. But if Nature itself could 'speak', this would apply. We call them "laws" of science. And while we humans may or may not be able to actually know them correctly, nature still commands reality akin to what we understand as these 'ideas' or 'forms'. Reality is just the manifestation of these in a one-to-one relationship.

It's not impossible that all of nature is beholden to laws but humans might never know this or
even know 1% of all the laws she obeys.

I tend to think of nature and reality as about the same thing. When I speak of observing it I tend
to use the word nature and when speaking of how it acts; reality.

I believe that to understand reality requires finding the actual words or 'language' of reality in such a way that it connects in an equivalent way to its manifestation as we witness (observe) it.

This is exactly what animals do and ancient people did.

We do this by using empirical science to hint at what is real while also attempting to show how the logic of nature can be rationally argued from the most minimum premises. To me, that minimum premise is to assume Nothingness as an origin and show how this leads to all that exists through the motivator of its own "contradiction".

We do use observation > experiment to understand nature and this has become so complex we
almost have to build models to remember it all. We use models as short cuts to think and this
makes science effective. It does not necessarily lead to understanding however. Despite our
near total ignorance we believe we know almost everything. We can't see the flaws and weak-
nesses because we are blinded by our knowledge and carefully constructed models.

This is the same problem experienced by the pyramid builders. Where our experiment has become
overly complex it was their metaphysics that became overly complex. Their metaphysics was
language itself so it failed. Their writing looks like nonsense to us. It's "god this" and "magic
that" to our eyes, but "god" was the subject and perspective while "magic" was the means to ac-
quire knowledge. There were no "gods" and this is mistranslation. Each god was a natural phen-
omenon. There were no "magic sceptres" but rather these were the means to impart knowledge
to the real world; tools and parts.

I've long suspected that time is the only reality. There should be some partical or energy that
is a different manifestation of time. The universe would probably be many orders of magnitude
older than current theory predicts.

[cladking]

It is an entirely physical truth which is a property of the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time. The motion of every single entity in the universe with mass affects change in the motion of every other entity in the universe with mass. This is an absolute FACT, and a completely uncontroversial one, and it is also a central point to be understood in a quest for a Theory of Everything.

I agree with the statement because it's not contradicted by experiment and is logical. It was my understanding though that QM has ruled out such tiny little forces affecting thingsat great distance.