Abstract vs. Physical is a Contradiction

[Eodnhoj7]

Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging"

Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change".

This will be the definition provided. It will be simple and short. However in the course of the discussion any other definitions will be accepted as well. This is just a starting point.

To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected.

Simple enough.

Abstractions are connected to abstractions.

Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.

The problem occurs with "connection":


1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomenon exist through abstractions.

2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomenon.

3. If "connection" is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.

[Impenitent]

language is abstraction

there is no connection

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

language is abstraction

there is no connection

-Imp

Thanks for typing those words down so I can see them.

[Impenitent]

the relationship between the signifier and the signified remains arbitrary

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

the relationship between the signifier and the signified remains arbitrary

-Imp

Thus all relationships between one abstraction and another, one physical state and another is also arbitrary as relationship takes on a meaningless note when one state (active/projective) and another (passive/formless) are defined by the relations.

The signifier is active. The signified is passive. One takes on the form of the other.

Eventually (AvP)

Becomes:

((AvA)v(PvP))v((AvP)v(AvP))

And eventually we are left with v as the only constant as existing through Abstraction and Physicality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging"

Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change".

This will be the definition provided. It will be simple and short. However in the course of the discussion any other definitions will be accepted as well. This is just a starting point.

To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected.

Simple enough.

Abstractions are connected to abstractions.

Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.

The problem occurs with "connection":


1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomenon exist through abstractions.

2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomenon.

3. If "connection" is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.

Nah!
Your 'unchanging' and 'event changes' are red-herrings.
You should give examples and you will find your thesis is not tenable.

Rather;

1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or thoughts only

2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" and thoughts.

The point is while the empirical is based on senses and thoughts, they can give rise to other thoughts.

On the other hand, what is abstraction is based on thoughts which can be either empirical or non-empirical.

The problem of contradiction arises when abstraction based on the non-empirical as insisted to be 'empirically' real, i.e. they are connected in empirical reality.
Example is when god - abstracted purely from thoughts as non-empirical is claimed to be empirical and empirically real, so real that God listens to and answers prayers.

[Eodnhoj7]

Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging"

Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change".

This will be the definition provided. It will be simple and short. However in the course of the discussion any other definitions will be accepted as well. This is just a starting point.

To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected.

Simple enough.

Abstractions are connected to abstractions.

Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.

The problem occurs with "connection":


1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomenon exist through abstractions.

2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomenon.

3. If "connection" is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.

Nah!
Your 'unchanging' and 'event changes' are red-herrings.
Red hering is when an argument is diverted, I am starting the argument with it.
Second I said all other definitions will be allowed, so there is no diversion.

Your application of red herring falsely to divert the premised, is a red hering.


You should give examples and you will find your thesis is not tenable.

This is not a thesis, this is define premises with the premises being open to an expansion of definition. In simpler words I am defining the premises but saying they can be expanded through new definitions. There is no contradiction.



Rather;

1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or thoughts only

2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" and thoughts.


The point is while the empirical is based on senses and thoughts, they can give rise to other thoughts.

On the other hand, what is abstraction is based on thoughts which can be either empirical or non-empirical.

The problem of contradiction arises when abstraction based on the non-empirical as insisted to be 'empirically' real, i.e. they are connected in empirical reality.
Example is when god - abstracted purely from thoughts as non-empirical is claimed to be empirical and empirically real, so real that God listens to and answers prayers.

So thoughts are empirical and abstract according to your definitions?


If that is the case, the dichotomy is negated as empirical thoughts lead to abstract thoughts, but abstract thoughts cannot lead to empirical thoughts and all abstractions are the assumption of sensory phenomenon.

Thus abstractions are not real, but considering empirical phenomenon lead to them, the empirical phenomenon negates itself as well.

Both abstract and physical are connected through thought, but thought is divided into abstract and empirical. Thus thought is divided and thoughts cannot connect to thoughts and we are left with thought continually diverging into different forms.

Its self negating, thus there is no truth and neither your argument can be true as this is empirical. Any abstract thoughts it produces are the entropy of the physical and cannot be observed as a way of determining if the physical is true or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging"

Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change".

This will be the definition provided. It will be simple and short. However in the course of the discussion any other definitions will be accepted as well. This is just a starting point.

To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected.

Simple enough.

Abstractions are connected to abstractions.

Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.

The problem occurs with "connection":


1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomenon exist through abstractions.

2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomenon.

3. If "connection" is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.

Nah!
Your 'unchanging' and 'event changes' are red-herrings.
Red hering is when an argument is diverted, I am starting the argument with it.
Second I said all other definitions will be allowed, so there is no diversion.

Your application of red herring falsely to divert the premised, is a red hering.


You should give examples and you will find your thesis is not tenable.

This is not a thesis, this is define premises with the premises being open to an expansion of definition. In simpler words I am defining the premises but saying they can be expanded through new definitions. There is no contradiction.



Rather;

1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or thoughts only

2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" and thoughts.


The point is while the empirical is based on senses and thoughts, they can give rise to other thoughts.

On the other hand, what is abstraction is based on thoughts which can be either empirical or non-empirical.

The problem of contradiction arises when abstraction based on the non-empirical as insisted to be 'empirically' real, i.e. they are connected in empirical reality.
Example is when god - abstracted purely from thoughts as non-empirical is claimed to be empirical and empirically real, so real that God listens to and answers prayers.

So thoughts are empirical and abstract according to your definitions?


If that is the case, the dichotomy is negated as empirical thoughts lead to abstract thoughts, but abstract thoughts cannot lead to empirical thoughts and all abstractions are the assumption of sensory phenomenon.

Thus abstractions are not real, but considering empirical phenomenon lead to them, the empirical phenomenon negates itself as well.

You are lost here.

Empirical phenomenon can lead to abstract thoughts.
Circular circles [phenomenon] lead to the abstract perfect circle which is only thought.
But note, phenomenon are justified by real evidences [scientific method] not just merely thoughts.
The justification process [scientific method] involves thinking in the process not a thought of the object [phenomenon].

Since you conflated and missed this step, the rest of your argument is non-sequitor.

Both abstract and physical are connected through thought, but thought is divided into abstract and empirical. Thus thought is divided and thoughts cannot connect to thoughts and we are left with thought continually diverging into different forms.

Its self negating, thus there is no truth and neither your argument can be true as this is empirical. Any abstract thoughts it produces are the entropy of the physical and cannot be observed as a way of determining if the physical is true or not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nah!
Your 'unchanging' and 'event changes' are red-herrings.
Red hering is when an argument is diverted, I am starting the argument with it.
Second I said all other definitions will be allowed, so there is no diversion.

Your application of red herring falsely to divert the premised, is a red hering.


You should give examples and you will find your thesis is not tenable.

This is not a thesis, this is define premises with the premises being open to an expansion of definition. In simpler words I am defining the premises but saying they can be expanded through new definitions. There is no contradiction.



Rather;

1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or thoughts only

2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" and thoughts.


The point is while the empirical is based on senses and thoughts, they can give rise to other thoughts.

On the other hand, what is abstraction is based on thoughts which can be either empirical or non-empirical.

The problem of contradiction arises when abstraction based on the non-empirical as insisted to be 'empirically' real, i.e. they are connected in empirical reality.
Example is when god - abstracted purely from thoughts as non-empirical is claimed to be empirical and empirically real, so real that God listens to and answers prayers.

So thoughts are empirical and abstract according to your definitions?


If that is the case, the dichotomy is negated as empirical thoughts lead to abstract thoughts, but abstract thoughts cannot lead to empirical thoughts and all abstractions are the assumption of sensory phenomenon.

Thus abstractions are not real, but considering empirical phenomenon lead to them, the empirical phenomenon negates itself as well.

You are lost here.

Empirical phenomenon can lead to abstract thoughts.
Circular circles [phenomenon] lead to the abstract perfect circle which is only thought.
But note, phenomenon are justified by real evidences not just merely thoughts.
Real evidence is the connection of physical phenomenon through interpretation, thus you are using abstractions to connect them.

The justification process involves thinking in the process not a thought of the object [phenomenon].
But abstractions cannot be applied to empirical entities, according to you, as these abstractions are not real.



Since you conflated and missed this step, the rest of your argument is non-sequitor.

There is no conflation as conflation is an abstraction and you are using transcendental illusions to justify your point...which is effectively nothing as not even a dualism occurs.

Both abstract and physical are connected through thought, but thought is divided into abstract and empirical. Thus thought is divided and thoughts cannot connect to thoughts and we are left with thought continually diverging into different forms.

Its self negating, thus there is no truth and neither your argument can be true as this is empirical. Any abstract thoughts it produces are the entropy of the physical and cannot be observed as a way of determining if the physical is true or not.

Again your argument is just a regressive spiral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So thoughts are empirical and abstract according to your definitions?


If that is the case, the dichotomy is negated as empirical thoughts lead to abstract thoughts, but abstract thoughts cannot lead to empirical thoughts and all abstractions are the assumption of sensory phenomenon.

Thus abstractions are not real, but considering empirical phenomenon lead to them, the empirical phenomenon negates itself as well.

You are lost here.

Empirical phenomenon can lead to abstract thoughts.
Circular circles [phenomenon] lead to the abstract perfect circle which is only thought.
But note, phenomenon are justified by real evidences not just merely thoughts.
Real evidence is the connection of physical phenomenon through interpretation, thus you are using abstractions [empirical] to connect them.

The problem is you missed out abstractions [empirical] thus it caused a conflation in your mind.
If you put [empirical] specifically besides the abstractions there is no issue.

Yes abstractions are involved but they are empirical-related abstraction as concepts not non-empirical abstractions.

The final result is the realization of real things.
Example, humans used empirical related concepts of apples to realize what is a real apple that can be eaten.

Theists relied on non-empirical related ideas to reify the idea of a God and insist such a God [illusory] is real.

Note the difference, concepts = empirical based, ideas = non-empirical based.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are lost here.

Empirical phenomenon can lead to abstract thoughts.
Circular circles [phenomenon] lead to the abstract perfect circle which is only thought.
But note, phenomenon are justified by real evidences not just merely thoughts.
Real evidence is the connection of physical phenomenon through interpretation, thus you are using abstractions [empirical] to connect them.

The problem is you missed out abstractions [empirical] thus it caused a conflation in your mind.
If you put [empirical] specifically besides the abstractions there is no issue.

Thus abstractions are the entropy of a physical universe, but entropy itself is an abstraction and we are left with negentropy as both an abstraction and physical phenomenon negating the dualism between abstraction and physicality.

Yes abstractions are involved but they are empirical-related abstraction as concepts not non-empirical abstractions.

The final result is the realization of real things.
Example, humans used empirical related concepts of apples to realize what is a real apple that can be eaten.

Really because 1 equivocates to "all" and everything and we are left with the apples justifying abstractions.

Number are physical and empirical entities.

Theists relied on non-empirical related ideas to reify the idea of a God and insist such a God [illusory] is real.

Not really, many use creation and the universe as proof...many people already state this.

Note the difference, concepts = empirical based, ideas = non-empirical based.

Non-empirical based, is a negative and cannot be proven, and as absent of empirical nature it is an abstraction...thus negating your argument as you point to abstractions as having a negative value which defines the positive.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is "context" a physical phenomenon or is it an abstraction?

[surreptitious57]

Number are physical and empirical entities

Numbers are abstract concepts and nothing else and are therefore non physical and non empirical
All languge [ both mathematical and non mathematical ] is abstract so is not physical or empirical

[surreptitious57]

Is context a physical phenomenon or is it an abstraction

Context is an abstract concept for both the abstract and the physical

[Eodnhoj7]

Number are physical and empirical entities

Numbers are abstract concepts and nothing else and are therefore non physical and non empirical
All languge [ both mathematical and non mathematical ] is abstract so is not physical or empirical

If numbers only exist through the act of counting, they require empirical proof as counting is grounded in empiricism.