Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

[Eodnhoj7]

In short: you think that there is absolute certainty, because you think that there is absolute certainty.

Now you see why I told you that you can't tell if something is logical or not.

I thing there is absolute certainty because I think there is absolute certainty is the principle of identity fundamentally.

What do you mean? If we call something "x", then that something is called "x", but all conceptual overlays are subject to inherent uncertainty.

Yeah and equivocation observes a being the cause of a considering it is self referential.


If something is called "x", then saying "x=x" is just circular.

[Atla]

I thing there is absolute certainty because I think there is absolute certainty is the principle of identity fundamentally.

What do you mean? If we call something "x", then that something is called "x", but all conceptual overlays are subject to inherent uncertainty.

Yeah and equivocation observes a being the cause of a considering it is self referential.


If something is called "x", then saying "x=x" is just circular.

It's not circular, x=x applied to the real world is simply saying x twice. My chair is my chair. I just said the same thing twice, it's more like redundant.

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you mean? If we call something "x", then that something is called "x", but all conceptual overlays are subject to inherent uncertainty.

Yeah and equivocation observes a being the cause of a considering it is self referential.


If something is called "x", then saying "x=x" is just circular.

It's not circular, x=x applied to the real world is simply saying x twice. My chair is my chair. I just said the same thing twice, it's more like redundant.

And saying "The snow is falling because the snow is falling" is redundant.

Facepalm emoji...please try harder.

[Atla]

Yeah and equivocation observes a being the cause of a considering it is self referential.


If something is called "x", then saying "x=x" is just circular.

It's not circular, x=x applied to the real world is simply saying x twice. My chair is my chair. I just said the same thing twice, it's more like redundant.

And saying "The snow is falling because the snow is falling" is redundant.

Facepalm emoji...please try harder.

I should try harder?
We can say that the snow is falling, but that doesn't mean that there is absolute certainty.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's not circular, x=x applied to the real world is simply saying x twice. My chair is my chair. I just said the same thing twice, it's more like redundant.

And saying "The snow is falling because the snow is falling" is redundant.

Facepalm emoji...please try harder.

I should try harder?
We can say that the snow is falling, but that doesn't mean that there is absolute certainty.

Actually snow is falling, because of its absense of definition relative to a specific context, necessitates it to unlimited context and modal realism occurs.

[Atla]

And saying "The snow is falling because the snow is falling" is redundant.

Facepalm emoji...please try harder.

I should try harder?
We can say that the snow is falling, but that doesn't mean that there is absolute certainty.

Actually snow is falling, because of its absense of definition relative to a specific context, necessitates it to unlimited context and modal realism occurs.

When you say "because", you are no longer talking about identity, you are talking about causation.

When it comes to causation, we have pretty good models now why snow is falling (cold, precipitation etc.), so-called physical processes. Where we draw the line is arbitrary, we can look at the cloud or the Earth or the entire universe.

What doesn't cause the snow to fall is "absense of definition relative to a specific context, necessitates it to unlimited context and modal realism occurs" or whatever.

[Eodnhoj7]

I should try harder?
We can say that the snow is falling, but that doesn't mean that there is absolute certainty.

Actually snow is falling, because of its absense of definition relative to a specific context, necessitates it to unlimited context and modal realism occurs.

When you say "because", you are no longer talking about identity, you are talking about causation.

When it comes to causation, we have pretty good models now why snow is falling (cold, precipitation etc.), so-called physical processes. Where we draw the line is arbitrary, we can look at the cloud or the Earth or the entire universe.

What doesn't cause the snow to fall is "absense of definition relative to a specific context, necessitates it to unlimited context and modal realism occurs" or whatever.

1. Causation:

Cause leads to effect.

Effect is in itself a cause, hence an approximation of the prior cause.

Cause exists through cause and is fundamentally equal to itself.

The dualism of "therefore" as "->" and because as "<-" are effectively duals where "if and only if" as "<->" observes a state synonymous to equality where P exists if and only if P exists. The principle of identity, rooted in a problematic undefined "=" state necessitates P(x)P where "(x)" is a series of variations of a connector.

Most logical symbols are rooted in directional qualities (which I have partially argued somewhere on this forum...I think the 13 prime directives thread) and as such are variations of "⊙".


2. Actually all models explain why and how snow falls is subject to time and basic weather channels show physical processes are less causal and more correlative due to thier statistical nature.

3. What doesn't cause snow to fall, is subject to localization of relations and is subject to the observer. I can argue that a stone does not cause snow to fall when kept in a specific context of relations. However chaos theory and the butterfly effect observes ample means to pointing it as a cause. Cause effectively is the localization of one variable and how it connects to further variables.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is a philosopher to do when he realizes that explaining everything, doesn't really explain anything?
Now this term "philosopher" really is strictly nothing in itself and hence applies quite literally to the human condition.

Discuss

Your views above is an issue of conflation and deception.

Point is there are two senses and perspective here;

• 1. Everything is something-A in perspective A.
  2. Everything is something-B in perspective B.

If you are stuck in merely perspective-A, obviously everything is not something-B.
To make sense you have to qualify them in the same perspective.

For example is where people are stuck in the common and conventional sense their explanation of reality will not explain anything to those who are aware that common things are fundamentally atoms, molecules, energy, quarks, etc.

Therefore if we are aware reality must be viewed from various perspectives, then applying the right perspective will enable whatever justifiable and rational explanations to make sense.

I agree, philosophy and reality must be viewed from the perspective of the human conditions as one among the many perspectives.

If everything must be viewed from various perspectives, then that is the right perspective and all explanations are simultaneously absolute and relative.

Absolute in the respect the explanation exists as a constant, relative in the respects they are an approximation of a constant truth but as an approximation are constant nonetheless.

There are no such thing as all are simultaneously absolute-absolute and relative.

Yes, everything must be viewed within a range of perspectives.
The relevant perspective will depend on the rightness in relation to the appropriate context or Framework and System.
What is right 'Physically' will be subjected to compliance with the Scientific Framework, System and Methods.
What is 'right' [morality] will be subjected to the effective Framework & System of Morality and Ethics.

Note, there are relative-absolutes within the empirical world, e.g. absolute temperature, monarchy and the likes.
However there are no real absolute-absolutes, i.e. something that is totally unconditional, independent by itself and a stand-alone-constant.

In your OP you are committing the fallacy of conflation of different perspectives. If you need to use different perspectives you need to qualify them.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your views above is an issue of conflation and deception.

Point is there are two senses and perspective here;

• 1. Everything is something-A in perspective A.
  2. Everything is something-B in perspective B.

If you are stuck in merely perspective-A, obviously everything is not something-B.
To make sense you have to qualify them in the same perspective.

For example is where people are stuck in the common and conventional sense their explanation of reality will not explain anything to those who are aware that common things are fundamentally atoms, molecules, energy, quarks, etc.

Therefore if we are aware reality must be viewed from various perspectives, then applying the right perspective will enable whatever justifiable and rational explanations to make sense.

I agree, philosophy and reality must be viewed from the perspective of the human conditions as one among the many perspectives.

If everything must be viewed from various perspectives, then that is the right perspective and all explanations are simultaneously absolute and relative.

Absolute in the respect the explanation exists as a constant, relative in the respects they are an approximation of a constant truth but as an approximation are constant nonetheless.

There are no such thing as all are simultaneously absolute-absolute and relative.

Yes, everything must be viewed within a range of perspectives.
The relevant perspective will depend on the rightness in relation to the appropriate context or Framework and System.
What is right 'Physically' will be subjected to compliance with the Scientific Framework, System and Methods.
What is 'right' [morality] will be subjected to the effective Framework & System of Morality and Ethics.

Note, there are relative-absolutes within the empirical world, e.g. absolute temperature, monarchy and the likes.
However there are no real absolute-absolutes, i.e. something that is totally unconditional, independent by itself and a stand-alone-constant.

In your OP you are committing the fallacy of conflation of different perspectives. If you need to use different perspectives you need to qualify them.

If all relative truth exists as an approximation of an absolute truth, this approximation exists as an extension of the absolute in existence.

The fallacy of conflation is subject to conflation as their is no universal defintion as to what ambiguity is or is not.

As to the rest of what you say....pure self righteous gibberish as usual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If all relative truth exists as an approximation of an absolute truth, this approximation exists as an extension of the absolute in existence.

The fallacy of conflation is subject to conflation as their is no universal defintion as to what ambiguity is or is not.

As to the rest of what you say....pure self righteous gibberish as usual.

Relative truths are not approximations of any Absolute Truth.
Where is your proofs if you do not agree to the above?
You are merely jumping to conclusion there is an Absolute Truth.

Relative truths are truths that are conditioned to their specific Framework and System.
For example, scientific truths are true only as conditioned to the human agreed upon Scientific Framework, System and Methods.

It is a legal truth Ted Bundy was a convicted serial killer but only conditioned upon the US Constitution and its Laws.

There are economic, social, political, etc. truths that are subjected to their respective Framework and Systems.

There is no Absolute Truth that stands independently by itself.

Your desperation for an Absolute Truth is due to your internal terrible existential psychology. On a massive scale from the majority of theists, this clinging on an absolute truth has inspired terrible evil and violent acts.

[Logik]

What is a philosopher to do when he realizes that explaining everything, doesn't really explain anything?

He becomes a scientist. You no longer seeks to explain. You seek to predict/control future events by understanding past events.

And in the same breath as the OP - predicting everything predicts nothing e.g God created The Universe.

This predicts AND explains everything! And nobody likes it :/

Now this term "philosopher" really is strictly nothing in itself and hence applies quite literally to the human condition.

Now that you have examined all of the perspectives focus on examine the one you have spent least time studying.

Your own. And strive for consistency. In words and in actions.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all relative truth exists as an approximation of an absolute truth, this approximation exists as an extension of the absolute in existence.

The fallacy of conflation is subject to conflation as their is no universal defintion as to what ambiguity is or is not.

As to the rest of what you say....pure self righteous gibberish as usual.

Relative truths are not approximations of any Absolute Truth.
Where is your proofs if you do not agree to the above?
You are merely jumping to conclusion there is an Absolute Truth.

Relative truths are truths that are conditioned to their specific Framework and System.
For example, scientific truths are true only as conditioned to the human agreed upon Scientific Framework, System and Methods.

It is a legal truth Ted Bundy was a convicted serial killer but only conditioned upon the US Constitution and its Laws.

There are economic, social, political, etc. truths that are subjected to their respective Framework and Systems.

There is no Absolute Truth that stands independently by itself.

Your desperation for an Absolute Truth is due to your internal terrible existential psychology. On a massive scale from the majority of theists, this clinging on an absolute truth has inspired terrible evil and violent acts.

"⊙"

Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.

[Logik]

"⊙"

Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.

Because I can turn it into dualism with one question.

is it true?

[Eodnhoj7]

What is a philosopher to do when he realizes that explaining everything, doesn't really explain anything?

He becomes a scientist. You no longer seeks to explain. You seek to predict/control future events by understanding past events.

Now this term "philosopher" really is strictly nothing in itself and hence applies quite literally to the human condition.

Now that you have examined all of the perspectives focus on examine the one you have spent least time studying.

Your own. And strive for consistency. In words and in actions.

Actually the last is never fully observed, hence the future is never really controlable.

Actually what consistency do you propose? I seen your arguments, they are not consistent at all.

[Logik]

Actually the last is never fully observed, hence the future is never really controlable.

You only need to control micro-states, not macro-states.

This is the concept of power. The more you can control - the more powerful you are.

Actually what consistency do you propose? I seen your arguments, they are not consistent at all.

Of course! Godel told us that.

Any sufficiently powerful system cannot be both consistent AND complete.

I propose consistency of outcome. Teleology or thereabouts.