Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

Sythesis is infinite as its divergent and convergent properties are a continuum of continuums and as such is both absolute and relative.

If you had infinite time - sure.

But you don't.

Finite observations with finite thought-cycles synthesises finite number of hypotheses.

[Arising_uk]

Right above.

Where did I ask one before that?

I am still waiting for you to explain it all, so I guess patience is "good"?

Pay attention at the back there, I already did explain what I meant.

[Eodnhoj7]

My version of the scientific method
OPEN A MIDDLE-SCHOOL textbook or look on the wall of a science classroom. There it is. Written like the Ten Commandments of science - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Too bad it's mostly a lie. Yes. I'm going there.

What is the Scientific Method? ——————————

There are different forms of this scientific method. Some are just like my graphic above, some have other steps in there. They are all generally the same. Here is a very basic description.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/whats-wro ... ic-method/[/i]

What's wrong with the scientific method is the same thing that's wrong with democracy.

They are the least terrible option given the alternatives.

It may be one way to find answers, but it's not the only way. Again, this doesn't mean empirical evidence isn't the ultimate test of whether a solution is pragmatic and makes a real difference.

What logick fails to take into account is the "pragmaticism" is a loosely defined argument weaved together by Pierce (actually he probably knows the history)

"Today, outside of philosophy, "pragmatism" is often taken to refer to a compromise of aims or principles, even a ruthless search for mercenary advantage. Peirce gave other or more specific reasons for the distinction in a surviving draft letter that year and in later writings. Peirce's pragmatism, that is, pragmaticism, differed in Peirce's view from other pragmatisms by its commitments to the spirit of strict logic, the immutability of truth, the reality of infinity, and the difference between (1) actively willing to control thought, to doubt, to weigh reasons, and (2) willing not to exert the will, willing to believe.[2] In his view his pragmatism is, strictly speaking, not itself a whole philosophy, but instead a general method for the clarification of ideas. He first publicly formulated his pragmatism as an aspect of scientific logic along with principles of statistics and modes of inference in his "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" series of articles in 1877-8."

The problem occurs is that his notion of pragmaticism, premised by Logick personal premise of the necessity of finiteness to reason, is that this premised on an "infinity" which is irrecocilable under his own views...and as such is a contradiction in both form and function.

The problem, taking the "above" out the equation and strictly defining pragmaticism to one of "advantage", which is a contradictory premised for most technocrats as they seek to overrule "nature" with some obscure understanding of their own wills, is that the premise for pragmaticism lies in an inherent "neitzchian" ruthlessness reflecting the technological growth during the industrial age of Neitzche and Pierce which affected the zietgeist showing an inherent "cog-in the machine" nature of the human condition.

Some of this is reflected in the pscyhological undertone of the times with Darwin's Evolution observing a movement away towards the human condition, effectively observing an inherent death force behind the foundations of evolution within the psyche of man as nothing is really maintained within "self-identity" except a sent of "perpetual advantage" where "ruthlessness" is effectively a form of relativism itself due to its atomizing nature akin metaphorically to a "shedding of the skin" similiar to the presocratic notion of the Ourboros.

Evolution is but a shedding the skins of perception and the consumption of them, effectively leading pragmaticism ruthlessness and its intertwining with industrialized culture and exercise in futility while necessitating a "relativistic common ground" as maintained without intention.

This lack of intention behind the endeavors the pragmaticist observes an inherent degree of determinism in certain respects where there fundamentally technologicalization, as a sort of "death drive" is congruent to an intertwined cosmic play between the forces of Yin and Yang and the pragmaticist is effectively doomed from both and empirical and abstract nature towards a sort of self-negation, resulting in fertilizer for further endeavors.

We can see this already, where "utility" is really a dying concept in the face of a vaccuum of "potential artistic meaning", where utility itself does not give foundation to the human soul, in light of modern technology, except where the soul itself become a utility bastardized into a "battery state" where all true intuition simply becomes a cog in the entertainment industry. This can be observed in cultural phenomenon such as the "matrix" where the movie itself represents a problem of an entrapping framework pragmatically created by the entertainment industry, thus observing a deterministically unavoidable self-referentiality in the story line itself, while observing the endpoint of pragmaticism really is just shallow entertainment.

The "eye", and all of its perpetual appetite (again cycling back to the ourboros, showing pragmaticism to effectively be a result of determinism as the repitition of another cycle that guides it while the allghorical nature of the eye as "wisdom" represented by Odin, Osiris and the Freemasonic Creed observes this same deterministic cyclic nature mirroring the Monad/Bindhu and the Subjective Nature of the Judaic Religions under the "One I AM"), becomes its own "economy" with this "economy" effectively being a flow of movements or resources observing that while "one may never step into the same river twice" as heraclitus observed...we effectively are stepping into this same "form" twice; thus further observing the platonic forms (most notably through the universal wave function the physicist's falsely hijacked) as deterministic models in themselves leaving an unavoidable "reason" within the foundations of the universe; where form effectively exists as a determinism, fundamentally unified under Pythagorean Quantification as form of localization of phenomena resulting in a basic cause and effect paradigm through math while intertwining form as "cause and effect" itself.

Determinism takes on a facet of not just "order", but meaning in many respects as an interwinning of various phenomena in a strict center point of "meaning" thus necessitating a Unified understanding of the Logos, argued by many philosopher's such as Plotinus, but effectively an act of sophistry in itself where Plato's deep enemy of the "sophist" observes the form of dialectic as a constant form in itself that is not only deterministic in its wiring of the perceptions of Man as Measurer, observed by Protagoras, but effectively is a "cause" unto itself where any distinction between the Objective and the Subjective is a Dialogue of Creation with a Divine Mind. Pragmaticism in these respects, takes on a form of meaningfullness in the projective course of mankind as "Cause" effectively cycles through itself under perpetual variation, while this very same Pragmaticism as a focalized point akin to and idolizitation of the individual divine spark (reminiscent to the concept of Atman or Baal worship having a congruency with deep narcissism in these historical cultures as well as a falsely ingrained polytheism through the atomization of the qualities of man and nature into idols in themselves) is self-defeating and observes a similiar parallel to the Lucifer Alleghory or a preordained damnation.

This rising and falling of not just the intellect, but the nature of phenomenon as "defined" in accords to the nature of the intellect as a seperator and connector, is itself deterministic and subject to the same question of not just the Ourboros and its ruthlessness embodied with the Pragmaticist Movement, but in itself "nothing" but strict "yin" female energy akin to a receptive void or unactualized potentiality. Determinism, that while existing through order, effectively observes an inherent aspect of unactualized subjective potential on part of the observer where inherent aspects the pscyche where never brought to light or being, while seperately observing an inherent nature within not just the human condition but the current technological progressive nature as never truly being "actualized" due to the problem of mortality, and the corresponding questions of "morality" which are fueled by it, that acts as the force of not just the "death drive" but the foundations of pragmaticism's grip through technology.

This dark aspect of determinism results in the cocooning of man with physicalized ideas, coined under the justification of efficiency in "x" creation to overcome the problem of "time" itself, but observes with the rise of materialism come a fall in abstract pursuits and the eventually rise of metaphysics to counter it.

All of this through a simple "alternating line" inherent within determinism, thus necessitating space as having an inherent order within it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sythesis is infinite as its divergent and convergent properties are a continuum of continuums and as such is both absolute and relative.

If you had infinite time - sure.

But you don't.

Finite observations with finite thought-cycles synthesises finite number of hypotheses.

Time is the division of one infinity to another.

[Logik]

Time is the division of one infinity to another.

And if you divide infinite time, you will end up with infinite chunks of time.

But you-the-human still only have a finite number of time-chunks to do hypothesising and synthesis.

[henry quirk]

So, I read the fifteen pages (45 through 60).

Right from the start, your dad missteps.

"The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity."

This is certainly one defintion but it certainly isn't the only definition.

For example...

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate"

"the ability to act at one's own discretion"

"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded"

"the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions"

"the ability to make one's own choices and determine one's own fate"

"the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints"

(my position): "the free will is the choosing individual' the 'agent' as oppsed to the 'event', the autonomous person, initiator and bender of causal chains"

You see what's missing from the definitions I offer, yeah? You see where your dad, misstepped, yeah?

Much of what your dad argues for and against in those fifteen pages extends out from his error, his misstep.

Your dad built (at least part of) his house on a flawed foundation.

[Logik]

The problem occurs is that his notion of pragmaticism, premised by Logick personal premise of the necessity of finiteness to reason, is that this premised on an "infinity" which is irrecocilable under his own views...and as such is a contradiction in both form and function.

Nope. It's actually a strawman. Like any coherentist I outright reject infinitism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.

As a starting point this will do, but my rejection of any and all authorities still raises a red flag.

Who do I need to justify my knowledge to and why?

That which I call "knowledge" is useful to me. And that's all the justification it requires.

If you want me to justify my knowledge to you - you can take a hike.

[peacegirl]

So, I read the fifteen pages (45 through 60).

Right from the start, your dad missteps.

"The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity."

This is certainly one defintion but it certainly isn't the only definition.

There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion.

For example...

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate"

Okay.

"the ability to act at one's own discretion"

Yup

"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded"

Okay

"the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions"

Fine

"the ability to make one's own choices and determine one's own fate"

That can also be used.

"the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints"

I agree.

(my position): "the free will is the choosing individual' the 'agent' as opposed to the 'event', the autonomous person, initiator and bender of causal chains"

You see what's missing from the definitions I offer, yeah? You see where your dad, misstepped, yeah?

Much of what your dad argues for and against in those fifteen pages extends out from his error, his misstep.

Your dad built (at least part of) his house on a flawed foundation.

No henry, he didn't build his house on a flawed foundation. You obviously did not grasp what he meant by determinism because he clearly explained that doing something of one's accord is the type of freedom he isn't referring to because we do have this ability. We are not caused as in a causal chain to do anything we don't want to do. The agent is involved in making the choice. Determinism the way it's presently defined presupposes that the individual has no say in his choice; that antecedent events are forced on him as if he is a cog in a wheel. In other words, we can bend the causal chain because no causes are set beforehand that can make us do anything that we don't want to, but that does not mean will is free. You missed an entire section. You really need to read and reread before telling me that he was wrong. Just because there's different definitions doesn't make him wrong. The problem is with the definition of determinism being used.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented: “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — as you just mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be
made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free?
And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.

Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

[Eodnhoj7]

Time is the division of one infinity to another.

And if you divide infinite time, you will end up with infinite chunks of time.

But you-the-human still only have a finite number of time-chunks to do hypothesising and synthesis.

Actually the finite number of decisions is never set, other than a number approaching infinity. Even the quantification of finite decision follows in this same paradox as that itself is subject to a continuum.

[Logik]

Actually the finite number of decisions is never set, other than a number approaching infinity.

There's an upper bound. And it's nowhere near as high as you think.
Average human life - 70 years. About 2.2*10^8 seconds.

I'll pretend yo make 1 decision every second just so you can have an argument.

Infinity is a concept your mind cannot process.

[Eodnhoj7]

The problem occurs is that his notion of pragmaticism, premised by Logick personal premise of the necessity of finiteness to reason, is that this premised on an "infinity" which is irrecocilable under his own views...and as such is a contradiction in both form and function.

Nope. It's actually a strawman. Like any coherentist I outright reject infinitism.

Strawman is a straw man as it is subject to slippery slope fallacy, coherentism is strictly a bandwagon interpretation; hence a fallacy. Infinitism to be rejected requires an infinite argument to negate it, paradoxically resulting in it not just as true but a foundation of philosophy.

Definition is dogmatism as all dogmas be nature are a framework of interwoven definition as to what something is and is not.

There is nothing illogical about infinite regress, as this observes an thetical progress; thus necessitating all definitions as continuums themselves.

All axioms as assumed are strictly points of observation, and as part of infinite continuums always have meaning in and of themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.

As a starting point this will do, but my rejection of any and all authorities still raises a red flag.

Who do I need to justify my knowledge to and why?

Then you are stuck in a loop of definitions, which is in itself a definition and the coherentist school is subject to the fallacy of circularity.

Justification defined a synonymous to any form of justice, as equilibrium observes all axioms as center points of continuums as justified existence alone.



That which I call "knowledge" is useful to me. And that's all the justification it requires.

If you want me to justify my knowledge to you - you can take a hike.

I don't have to, you are trying to already. Rather you should justify "usefulness" as that is another question altogether.

[Logik]

Then you are stuck in a loop of definitions,

Precisely the opposite. I don't care for definitions.

Language is a tool for communication. I much prefer to use it metaphorically than literally when interacting with humans. It works better that way.

which is in itself a definition and the coherentist school is subject to the fallacy of circularity.

And the foundationalist school is subject to infinitism.

We know. It's all broken. It seems to bother you way more than it bothers me.

Justification defined a synonymous to any form of justice, as equilibrium observes all axioms as center points of continuums as justified existence alone.

Am I the one stuck in a definitional loop or you?

I don't have to, you are trying to already. Rather you should justify "usefulness" as that is another question altogether.

Justify to whom and why?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the finite number of decisions is never set, other than a number approaching infinity.

There's an upper bound. And it's nowhere near as high as you think.
Average human life - 70 years. About 2.2*10^8 seconds.

I'll pretend yo make 1 decision every second just so you can have an argument.

Infinity is a concept your mind cannot process.

Infinity is a process, and the mind exists through it by emptiness. Strictly all phenomenon as points of origin alone, necessitates 70 years is merely a division of one infinity from another as trying to pin point any finite foundation leads to Zeno's Paradox.

Finiteness is dually a process in and of itself because to process finiteness requires further finiteness thus leading back to a continuum.

If infinity cannot be processed, then by default finiteness cannot be processed either.

As to 1 decision ever second, that means the decision as 1 second is composed of either sub decisions and/or a deterministic model leading to the decision as fundamentally an undefined state of randomness.

You want to quantify the decision by degrees, when in all truth the degree is contradictory by it's own nature and effectively is just made up. The math section observing the proof where two 90 degree angles are not equal justifies this claim.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then you are stuck in a loop of definitions,

Precisely the opposite. I don't care for definitions.

Language is a tool for communication. I much prefer to use it metaphorically than literally when interacting with humans. It works better that way.

Not if you are pragmatically interested in tools, as well as being a coherentist.
Metaphors are qualititative equations.

which is in itself a definition and the coherentist school is subject to the fallacy of circularity.

And the foundationalist school is subject to infinitism.

We know. It's all broken. It seems to bother you way more than it bothers me.


Now don't project. You are arguing for finiteness, I am simply saying it is irrational.

Justification defined a synonymous to any form of justice, as equilibrium observes all axioms as center points of continuums as justified existence alone.

Am I the one stuck in a definitional loop or you?

As a relativist you are unfortunately stuck in a whirlpool more than anything.

I don't have to, you are trying to already. Rather you should justify "usefulness" as that is another question altogether.

Justify to whom and why?

I can justify it real simply: "is".

[Logik]

Infinity is a process, and the mind exists through it by emptiness.

Deep.

Strictly all phenomenon as points of origin alone, necessitates 70 years is merely a division of one infinity from another as trying to pin point any finite foundation leads to Zeno's Paradox.

Which is why I reject foundationalism...

If infinity cannot be processed, then by default finiteness cannot be processed either.

My experiencees disagree.

As to 1 decision ever second, that means the decision as 1 second is composed of either sub decisions and/or a deterministic model leading to the decision as fundamentally an undefined state of randomness.

You want to quantify the decision by degrees, when in all truth the degree is contradictory by it's own nature and effectively is just made up. The math section observing the proof where two 90 degree angles are not equal justifies this claim.

I already pointed it out, but let me state it again.

You've uncovered the principle of explosion and you are having fun blowing everything up.
And you are leveraging infinities to obliterate everything in sight. You'll get bored eventually.

I have no patience for infinities.