Actually it turns out metaphysical speculation is stupid, and this has all been a huge waste of time.

[Eodnhoj7]

From a Comic Strip I cannot download:

Thales: Everything is Water
Heraclitus: Everything is Fire
Democritus: Everything is Atoms
Plato: Everything is Forms
Plotinus: Everything is the One
Averroes: Everything is Emanation
Descarte: Everything is Mind or Body
Spinoza: Everything is God
Berkeley: Everything is Ideas
Leibniz: Everything is Monads
Kant: Everything is Noumena
Wittgenstein: Actually it turns out metaphysical speculation is stupid, and this has all been a huge waste of time.




The foundational axioms of metaphysics are continually progressing and changing. It is this progress, however that acts as the boundary from which metaphysics is formed as one axiom projects to another and then another, which the new axioms inevitably cyclicaling back to the old, while expanding into further.

This directional nature of the axioms of metaphysics effectively form the nature of metaphysics as a process of being qua being, with "qua" as "which way" or "as" observing inherent seperative or connective qualities associated with direction.

This progressive amd self referential nature of metaphysics, if not all philosophy/religion/science for that matter, necessitates an inherent limit with the foundation of metaphysics as directed movement where this directive movment acts as the limit through which metaphysics exists.

This nature of metaphysics as limit through limit, axiomized in its inherent form and function, necessitates metaphysics as the study of limits itself.

[AlexW]

This progressive amd self referential nature of metaphysics, if not all philosophy/religion/science for that matter

Yes, agree, ultimately its all just thought referencing even more conceptual thought - no matter if we label the thought-arena metaphysics, philosophy, religion or science. But hey, that's the game we all play - it's only "dangerous" if we don't recognise that its only a game/conceptual "dream" and insist that we are right (and others wrong).

[Eodnhoj7]

This progressive amd self referential nature of metaphysics, if not all philosophy/religion/science for that matter

Yes, agree, ultimately its all just thought referencing even more conceptual thought - no matter if we label the thought-arena metaphysics, philosophy, religion or science. But hey, that's the game we all play - it's only "dangerous" if we don't recognise that its only a game/conceptual "dream" and insist that we are right (and others wrong).

What gets me is that, while absurd it may sound, this self-referential and progressive nature to these concepts, fields of study, whatever you want to call it considering language entropies into a myriad of definitions, give evidence to the nature of not just perception and the human psyche but what we understand of empirical phenomenon as fundamentally directed movement.

Directed movement is the foundation of all phenomenon and maintains itself as axiomatic while being open to further interpretation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
Kant: Everything is Noumena
Wittgenstein: Actually it turns out metaphysical speculation is stupid, and this has all been a huge waste of time.


This nature of metaphysics as limit through limit, axiomized in its inherent form and function, necessitates metaphysics as the study of limits itself.

Some of the quotes you stated above are wrong.
Kant did not claim 'everything' is noumena.

I disagree with Wittgenstein's metaphysical speculation is stupid.

Metaphysics as a branch of academic philosophy [within philosophy-proper] is definitely a useful tool for humanity.
It is useful to study limits but metaphysics is not limited to limits.
The prefix 'meta-' itself is contrary to 'limit'.

There is an article re 'Boundary' which is equivalent to 'limits'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boundary/

Whether all this boundary talk is coherent, however, and whether it reflects

• the structure of the world or
  simply the organizing activity of our mind,

are matters of deep philosophical controversy.

I believe the study of Metaphysics and Ontology are essential because these are manifestations of the brain and mind.
The critical restraint here is to ensure there is no reification of anything within metaphysics and ontology to entities like God, the Soul, the Whole Universe as things that are independent of the human conditions.

Since the above metaphysical and ontological ideas of God, the Soul, the Whole Universe arise from human conditions, humanity must trace these ideas to the last bastion of the frontiers of knowledge within the brain/mind's 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapses].

To do so it would be philosophical and wiser to note Russell's

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

The above approach is open-ended.
Limits are limiting.

[TimeSeeker]

The foundational axioms of metaphysics are continually progressing and changing.

This is part and parcel with the problem. Axioms/rules are the causes of structure in any logical framework.

Stephen Wolfram tried to (visually) show how from a very small set of starting assumptions (axioms) entirely random patterns can emerge: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/05/ ... year-view/

Some axioms produce self-similarity, others don't e.g this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30 it demonstrates Chaos theory's butterfly effect.
The general way to look at this is that axioms are a random seed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed - different set of axioms produces a different pattern.

And so it is possible that just one axiomatic error produces ENTIRELY different structure (of thought!). This is very risky way of thinking! One axiomatic error and my entire episteme is screwed!?!?!? No thanks!

It is why I have divorced myself from metaphysics. I am a proponent of mental models. And I am proponent for generating those mental models on the fly and as-needed using all the tools available to us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation

Mental models are far more flexible ways of thinking: https://fs.blog/mental-models/

[Eodnhoj7]

...
Kant: Everything is Noumena
Wittgenstein: Actually it turns out metaphysical speculation is stupid, and this has all been a huge waste of time.


This nature of metaphysics as limit through limit, axiomized in its inherent form and function, necessitates metaphysics as the study of limits itself.

Some of the quotes you stated above are wrong.
Kant did not claim 'everything' is noumena.

Kant's noumena are a categorization phenomena and are inseparable axiom from his philosophical stance. As inseparable they are foundational as a focal point of origin.



I disagree with Wittgenstein's metaphysical speculation is stupid.

Metaphysics as a branch of academic philosophy [within philosophy-proper] is definitely a useful tool for humanity.
It is useful to study limits but metaphysics is not limited to limits.
The prefix 'meta-' itself is contrary to 'limit'.

Because of the simultaneous progressive and circular nature of metaphysics, and various other physical and abstract fields of thought, the nature of metaphysics and "x" has no constant axiomatic base regardless of what you "want" to argue. Because the bases are subject to change and have no unity, hence structure, the fields are effectively meaningless.

However this progressive and circular nature to these axioms is in itself directed change, therefore a limit which gives structure. The controversial nature of "boundaries" in philosophy/x has a problem of coherency in regards to limit due to the replicative nature of limit through limit where any phenomenon as an extension of a limit is inherently a complex limit, as limit through limit (as a limit in itself), where controversy as a form of seperation is due to the inherent replication of limit into more complex limits.

The controversial aspect of what constitutes "boundary" and "limit" is inherently rational in the respect it acts through this progressive nature where an axiom progresses to another axiom leading to a projection of one axiom away from another reflecting a form of separation in one respect. This progression, however exists through a manner of circularity where on axioms course of definition cycles back to the original axiom necessitating a form of maintainance in the face of entropic chaos embodies under the potential nature of axioms changing, leading to a nature of formlessness and hence no limit.

This complexity leads to this "problem" in one respects, however has an inherent solution within it in the respect that all controversy necessitates a form of connectivity due to this progressive and circular nature within axioms themselves as a form of alternation occurs. A may lead to B and B may cycle Back to A, in one manner or another, and because of this A and B exist through eachother as eachother necessitating an inherent connection in both form and function where the axiom takes on a form of direction and function of movement.

The nature of "limit", as a definition in and of itself, follows this same course where limit and boundary have the inherently same meaning but effectively replicate through time in manner where language entropies. This entropy as a form of inversion, between one and many (where one turns to many and many turns to one), observes the axiom as not just having a progressively linear and circular nature but exists as a point of inversion in itself which further necessitates the axiom as having a tri-fold property where as a limit it exists fundamentally through the point, line and circle. This structuring of the world observes a prime triad as not just the inherent axiom that exists for what it is, but also replicating itself in an infinite variety of manners of being including the nature of language itself.

This prime triad effectively folds through itself in various degrees of complexity while cycling back in form and function and maintaining its constant source which is inherent within the example of language as a form of directed movement in itself.

The question of whether it is an organizing act of the mind, in simpler terms becomes an irrelevant question in many respects (but not all), considering the mind forms reality, with reality forming the mind, with this prime triad determining both the mind and what is perceived as inseparable from the mind. In these respects this prime triad is a neutral median in itself which takes on a nature of both mind and not mind.

In a dual respect, with all qualities being connected through their nature of alternation, this neutral nature effectively being beyond both as "no limit" where proof as a structure is not fully attainable in the sense it is progressive and continually changing. Proof as structure, or complex limits, takes on a role of having positive/thetical quality of existing with a dual negative/antithetical quality of absence of existing where proof cycling back in the same form and function of the limits from which it extends results in a form of synthesis of existence.





There is an article re 'Boundary' which is equivalent to 'limits'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boundary/

Whether all this boundary talk is coherent, however, and whether it reflects

• the structure of the world or
  simply the organizing activity of our mind,

are matters of deep philosophical controversy.

I believe the study of Metaphysics and Ontology are essential because these are manifestations of the brain and mind.
The critical restraint here is to ensure there is no reification of anything within metaphysics and ontology to entities like God, the Soul, the Whole Universe as things that are independent of the human conditions.

Since the above metaphysical and ontological ideas of God, the Soul, the Whole Universe arise from human conditions, humanity must trace these ideas to the last bastion of the frontiers of knowledge within the brain/mind's 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors

To relegate the axiom to any strict abstract or empirical source, such as platonic form or organic brain chemistry does not escape this problem as one is a relativistic localization of measurement where one is a beginning point of measurement that leads to the other. Abstractness and empricality are both one and the same in these respects as they are both limits through there nature as axioms and hence are directed movement.

Under these terms the question of God is less inherent and more actual as it manifests through this prime triad as the prime triad where the prime triad gives not just a universal definition of everything and nothing, which is the definition of God reflected in the "alpha omega" quality often assigned, but observes even the definition of God through this prime triad in both form and function as evidenced in anything from dictionary definition observing this progression and circulation, to the common interpretation of the circle as divine reflected in presocratic and Socratic thought, to the divinity of being through a natural law existing through cycles, etc.

God as limit and no limit, reflected further as a timeless definition where "type" regards both everything and nothing, does not contradict any previous rational explanation of God (such as the 24 definitions) while observing the progressive nature of this definition, relative to the formation of new definitions, that provide thetical and antithetical qualities where God takes on a synthetic nature. This synthetic nature of God is further reflected in a joining between God and Creation in the universal myths of the Dying God, embodied specifically in our time through Christianity, but remininscient of the Horus/Osiris, Quetzacoatal, and Odin mythology along with the form and formless nature of Eastern religions such as Daoism and in many respects Budhhism.

[synapses].

To do so it would be philosophical and wiser to note Russell's

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

The above approach is open-ended.
Limits are limiting.

Russel's work is premised in a linear projective nature to defining mathematics, specifically in his principle mathematics if memory serves, deemed contradictory in the face of Godels incompleteness theorems.

The concept of limit as limiting, observes the inversive (one to many and many to one), progressive linear, and circulatory maintaining qualities as inherent elements of the limit necessitating that it not only exists through "no-limits" but as itself as a constant. Limits, as directed movement, cannot be taken philosophically as an intuitive state of stagnation as this in itself is deemed as a form of entropy through time and effectively becomes not just self negating but a positive nature of being because of this self negation where the negative and negative simultaneously allows for the negative to continue and cancel itself out without contradiction as positive/existence and negative/absence of existence occur in the same time in different respects.

Each axiom is reflective of the observer, hence a variety of interpretation of any word, specifically limit and no limit in these cases, observes a relativistic state where multiple people may see many different things. This multiplicity of view points however is not just a constant, but necessitates a constant median these multiple viewpoints cycle back too and hence a unifying bond. This inversion of one and many view points, their progressive linear and maintainance circulatory nature, exists through the prime triad.

[Eodnhoj7]

The foundational axioms of metaphysics are continually progressing and changing.

This is part and parcel with the problem. Axioms/rules are the causes of structure in any logical framework.

Stephen Wolfram tried to (visually) show how from a very small set of starting assumptions (axioms) entirely random patterns can emerge: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/05/ ... year-view/

Some axioms produce self-similarity, others don't e.g this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30 it demonstrates Chaos theory's butterfly effect.
The general way to look at this is that axioms are a random seed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed - different set of axioms produces a different pattern.

And so it is possible that just one axiomatic error produces ENTIRELY different structure (of thought!). This is very risky way of thinking! One axiomatic error and my entire episteme is screwed!?!?!? No thanks!

It is why I have divorced myself from metaphysics. I am a proponent of mental models. And I am proponent for generating those mental models on the fly and as-needed using all the tools available to us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation

Mental models are far more flexible ways of thinking: https://fs.blog/mental-models/

See response to veritas for the majority of this post.

In regards to the mental model axiom, as a focal origin point of observation, as an axiom (with metaphysics as an axiom leading to the various other axioms of religion, science, math, empiricism, etc) it is subject to the above and the problem, as you see It, is not escaped fully.

However you are correct, in one degree, where all is mind with spirituality and physicality being frameworks that exist through this "mind" as frameworks that effectively synthesize with it and through it under this Prime Triad.

[TimeSeeker]

See response to veritas for the majority of this post.

In regards to the mental model axiom, as a focal origin point of observation, as an axiom (with metaphysics as an axiom leading to the various other axioms of religion, science, math, empiricism, etc) it is subject to the above and the problem, as you see It, is not escaped fully.

However you are correct, in one degree, where all is mind with spirituality and physicality being frameworks that exist through this "mind" as frameworks that effectively synthesize with it and through it under this Prime Triad.

Again. There is a simpler explanation. Even your Prime Triad goes one step too far in pre-supposing things! I start with teleology and work backwards.

What do I want? To understand the world? What does it mean 'to understand' in terms of human experience/concepts? What can I DO with 'understanding/knowledge'?

Suppose that I believe I have acquired "knowledge and understanding" I am still stuck with the meta-epistemic problem: How do I validate that what I have acquired is indeed "knowledge and understanding"? Inevitably - it always reduces down to one's own SUBJECTIVE expectation of what "knowledge" is and what you are meant to be doing with it.

And I think the only relevant properties of knowledge is that you can predict/control things with it. Predict what to say, predict what to do, predict what not to do so that you get what you wanted/expected to begin with.

In simple English: I solve problems.
Definition of a 'problem': Discrepancy between "IS" and "OUGHT" (present vs future)
Source of "OUGHT"? Human desire.

[Eodnhoj7]

See response to veritas for the majority of this post.

In regards to the mental model axiom, as a focal origin point of observation, as an axiom (with metaphysics as an axiom leading to the various other axioms of religion, science, math, empiricism, etc) it is subject to the above and the problem, as you see It, is not escaped fully.

However you are correct, in one degree, where all is mind with spirituality and physicality being frameworks that exist through this "mind" as frameworks that effectively synthesize with it and through it under this Prime Triad.

Again. There is a simpler explanation. I start with teleology and work backwards.


What do I want? To understand the world? What does it mean 'to understand' in terms of human experience/concepts? What can I DO with 'understanding/knowledge'?

Suppose that I believe I have acquired "knowledge and understanding" I am still stuck with the meta-epistemic problem: How do I validate that what I have acquired is indeed "knowledge and understanding"? Inevitably - it always reduces down to one's own SUBJECTIVE expectation of what "knowledge" is and what you are meant to be doing with it.

And I think the only relevant properties of knowledge is that you can predict/control things with it. Predict what to say, predict what to do, predict what not to do so that you get what you wanted/expected to begin with.

Starting with teleology and working backwards results, at minimum, in the munchaussen trillema and does not escape the nature of limit as directed movement, evidenced at minimum in the statement "working backwards", which is the only common form and function in the problem of metaphysics and "x" (with x being philosophy, religion, science, math, empirical actions, etc.).

What one wants and what one needs are different qualities, and reducing them to what when the question is six dimensional (who,what,when,where,how,why) is inherently irrational.

Subjectivity is void of definition without objectifying it through a median of self-reflection (where the subjective experience is given form through the limits of thought, word, deed) reflecting others and or both

Prediction is impossible as prediction necessitates a form of dealing with a phenomena existing through void...and void is nothing, it is not even absent of structure. Understanding something's nature is the closest means of "prediction".

[TimeSeeker]

Starting with teleology and working backwards results, at minimum, in the munchaussen trillema and does not escape the nature of

Well, should you be able to escape the trilemma? You pre-suppose that one OUGHT to be able to "prove truth". Or that one OUGHT to be able to axiomatically justify things, or one OUGGHT to avoid regressive arguments. You have already imposed limits on yourself!

You don't need any of that in the face of living proof! People of late 19th century didn't believe one could cross the Atlantic in 8 hours? OK - here is an airplane.

Prediction is impossible as prediction necessitates a form of dealing with a phenomena existing through void...and void is nothing, it is not even absent of structure. Understanding something's nature is the closest means of "prediction".

The closest meaning of "prediction" is aligned with "human expectation".

[Eodnhoj7]

Starting with teleology and working backwards results, at minimum, in the munchaussen trillema and does not escape the nature of

Well, should you be able to escape the trilemma? You pre-suppose that one OUGHT to be able to "prove truth". Or that one OUGHT to be able to axiomatically justify things, or avoid regressive arguments.

You don't need any of that in the face of living proof!

Prediction is impossible as prediction necessitates a form of dealing with a phenomena existing through void...and void is nothing, it is not even absent of structure. Understanding something's nature is the closest means of "prediction".

The closest meaning of "prediction" is aligned with "human expectation".

I made the mistake of posting too early, you should probably reread the post and then post your statement again.

[TimeSeeker]

I made the mistake of posting too early, you should probably reread the post and then post your statement again.

does not escape the nature of limit as directed movement

I am happy to go on this. The only real limits are the laws of physics. The directed nature you speak of is what I call "goals and objectives".

I set the direction. Then bump into "impossibilities" and "challenges" along the way...

Sometimes I get lucky and figure out that somebody has already solved a particular problem so I don't have to re-invent the wheel along the way.

Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that...

[TimeSeeker]

But this point is important:

When you pre-suppose that one OUGHT to be able to "prove truth". Or that one OUGHT to be able to axiomatically justify things, or one OUGGHT to avoid regressive arguments. You have already imposed limits on yourself!

Godel has already shown us that "truth" is a higher notion than "proof"!

A false OUGHT is worse than a false IS! It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

[Eodnhoj7]

Starting with teleology and working backwards results, at minimum, in the munchaussen trillema and does not escape the nature of

Well, should you be able to escape the trilemma? You pre-suppose that one OUGHT to be able to "prove truth". Or that one OUGHT to be able to axiomatically justify things, or one OUGGHT to avoid regressive arguments. You have already imposed limits on yourself!

You don't need any of that in the face of living proof! People of late 19th century didn't believe one could cross the Atlantic in 8 hours? OK - here is an airplane.

Prediction is impossible as prediction necessitates a form of dealing with a phenomena existing through void...and void is nothing, it is not even absent of structure. Understanding something's nature is the closest means of "prediction".

The closest meaning of "prediction" is aligned with "human expectation".

If you wish.

The munchaussen trillema is relativistic and false, it contradicts itself.

1) It claims all arguments are circular, where theory and proof support eachother but the nature of it claiming all arguments are regressive ad infinitum and base upon axioms results in the same form and function of circularity.

2) It claims all arguments are infinitely regressive, which necessitates this fallacy is incomplete and hence contradictory as it is an argument. No constant definition of axiom can be interpreted from it due to the fact the definition of axiom must also regress. The munchaussen trillema must continually expand, as observed in its multiple interpretations leading it subject to other fallacies such as equivocation, red herring, etc.

The argument necessitates a relativistic position of moving "backwards" which dually requires a "forwards", as backward is a statement of relation necessitating a forwards, hence is contradictory and in complete as backwards only is not axiomatic.

3) It claims all arguments are formed from specific axioms, but this in itself is an axiom where infinite linear regress and circularity are observed for what they are.

In a separate respect the axiom is not clearly defined except through the inversion of circularity and Linearism of the first two laws necessitating this third point as not axiomatic on its own terms except through the circularity of the argument observed above and it's progressive linear qualitie.


The munchaussen trillema inverted, under its own nature, results in directed movement as linear progression and circular expansion as the axioms which form it, with the axiom merely being a point of inversion from which circularity and linear progression occur, hence the foundations of truth are the Prime Triad.




Prediction is an understanding of something's nature, or the limits and complex limits which compose it, hence while aligned with human expectation in the respect subjectivity is inherent within human nature, is still dependent upon "nature" with "human" being a modality in this respect.


Running out of time, will expand on later as this is the short version.

[TimeSeeker]

The munchaussen trillema is relativistic and false, it contradicts itself.

So you already interpret contradiction as an undesirable property? In constructivist mathematics it's just an error.
It is possible for a model(argument) to be useful despite errors e.g edge cases/corner cases. That is how scientific theories work.

Always WITHIN their domain of applicability. That is - you cannot escape context in any interpretation of results.

1) It claims all arguments are circular, where theory and proof support eachother but the nature of it claiming all arguments are regressive ad infinitum and base upon axioms results in the same form and function of circularity.

It fails to draw distinction between circularity and recursion. Recursion leading towards convergence. Convergence towards the end goal e.g the teleology.

2) It claims all arguments are infinitely regressive, which necessitates this fallacy is incomplete and hence contradictory as it is an argument. No constant definition of axiom can be interpreted from it due to the fact the definition of axiom must also regress. The munchaussen trillema must continually expand, as observed in its multiple interpretations leading it subject to other fallacies such as equivocation, red herring, etc.

Yes. Arguments in words are circular because of the symbol-grounding problem.
Arguments in action are not. Actions have measurable effect on reality - words do not.

Prediction is an understanding of something's nature, or the limits and complex limits which compose it, hence while aligned with human expectation in the respect subjectivity is inherent within human nature, is still dependent upon "nature" with "human" being a modality in this respect.

Sure, and that is one of those inescapable limits of our hardware/wetware. Make lemonade...