A Priori Vs A Posteriori Does Not Exist.

[tapaticmadness]

As stated, perfection, empirical or by reason is merely a thought.
You can think [thought] of an empirical related perfect circle.
You may be able to trigger an image of a circle in your mind, but that image is never a perfect circle and you cannot prove it at all as 'perfect'.
Your act of thinking can be inferred as "empirically" but what is thought of [i.e. the perfect circle] is not empirical.

The above applies to empirically related perfection, but God's perfection is not empirical but merely based on thought only.
The idea of God is like the idea of a "square-circle".
Like the idea 'square-circle' the idea of 'God as real' is a contradiction.
If God is a contradiction, God cannot be real and more so, the perfect God cannot be imagined as an image in the mind.

You are such a strong philosophical Idealist. Does it irritate you that others aren't? Since I reject your very first premise would you like to try and prove it? Probably not. I think you think it is obvious. You seem to have been totally indoctrinated by popular belief.

Actually you are the fanatical idealist, i.e. merely playing with ideas and ideal [of perfection] in your mind rather than with empirical reality.

Yes, that is of course how an idealist would diagnose me. No surprise there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are such a strong philosophical Idealist. Does it irritate you that others aren't? Since I reject your very first premise would you like to try and prove it? Probably not. I think you think it is obvious. You seem to have been totally indoctrinated by popular belief.

Actually you are the fanatical idealist, i.e. merely playing with ideas and ideal [of perfection] in your mind rather than with empirical reality.

Yes, that is of course how an idealist would diagnose me. No surprise there.

Per what you have described yourself you cannot deny you are an idealist, more so a weird fanatical one.

In philosophy, idealism is the diverse group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human understanding and/or perception; that it is in some sense mentally constituted, or otherwise closely connected to ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

In philosophy, ideas [philosophical] are usually taken as mental representational images of some object.
Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea#Plato

I do not deny I am an idealist [not Berkeley's nor Plato's] in one way and empirical realist in another perspective.

[tapaticmadness]

Actually you are the fanatical idealist, i.e. merely playing with ideas and ideal [of perfection] in your mind rather than with empirical reality.

Yes, that is of course how an idealist would diagnose me. No surprise there.

Per what you have described yourself you cannot deny you are an idealist, more so a weird fanatical one.

In philosophy, idealism is the diverse group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human understanding and/or perception; that it is in some sense mentally constituted, or otherwise closely connected to ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

In philosophy, ideas [philosophical] are usually taken as mental representational images of some object.
Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea#Plato

I do not deny I am an idealist [not Berkeley's nor Plato's] in one way and empirical realist in another perspective.

Unfortunately the word "Ideal" has two meanings in English. On the one hand it means something perfect as when we say that they are an ideal couple, or this is an ideal bed, or this picturesque landscape is just ideal On the other hand it refers to those philosophies (like yours?) that say that there are concepts that we work with and they are "in the mind". They are ideas that the mind has concocted. They are not real things separate from and independent of thought. I say that i attend to perfect forms and those forms are real, they are not in my mind I am a realist about those forms. You yourself say that you are an idealist because you say they are only concepts in the mind. Am I wrong about that?

As for whether or not i am a fanatic. YES, i am. A madman.

[tapaticmadness]

They exist as things and these things are thought for all relations, as a series of movements, exist as part of the memory. Because of continual change we only see change through memory considering the present state is always one image. We observe change through memory, hence abstraction, therefore things are memory and memory is a thing. Things exist through things and this "throughness" necessitate a point of inversion from one image to another.

Are you assuming that there is a material substrate that the memory is of and that remains constant through all the changes? I think Berkeley, the father of British analytical philosophy, nicely destroyed the idea that there is.

[Eodnhoj7]

They exist as things and these things are thought for all relations, as a series of movements, exist as part of the memory. Because of continual change we only see change through memory considering the present state is always one image. We observe change through memory, hence abstraction, therefore things are memory and memory is a thing. Things exist through things and this "throughness" necessitate a point of inversion from one image to another.

Are you assuming that there is a material substrate that the memory is of and that remains constant through all the changes? I think Berkeley, the father of British analytical philosophy, nicely destroyed the idea that there is.

Spatial, not material. The only thing we understand of materiality is forms, and from form shape. Everything is interlocking shapes with the back drop always being isomorphic shapes...shapes within shapes.

[tapaticmadness]

Spatial, not material. The only thing we understand of materiality is forms, and from form shape. Everything is interlocking shapes with the back drop always being isomorphic shapes...shapes within shapes.

Is the Space you envision quantized, broken up into discrete quanta, or one smooth continuum?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, that is of course how an idealist would diagnose me. No surprise there.

Per what you have described yourself you cannot deny you are an idealist, more so a weird fanatical one.

In philosophy, idealism is the diverse group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human understanding and/or perception; that it is in some sense mentally constituted, or otherwise closely connected to ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

In philosophy, ideas [philosophical] are usually taken as mental representational images of some object.
Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea#Plato

I do not deny I am an idealist [not Berkeley's nor Plato's] in one way and empirical realist in another perspective.

Unfortunately the word "Ideal" has two meanings in English. On the one hand it means something perfect as when we say that they are an ideal couple, or this is an ideal bed, or this picturesque landscape is just ideal On the other hand it refers to those philosophies (like yours?) that say that there are concepts that we work with and they are "in the mind". They are ideas that the mind has concocted. They are not real things separate from and independent of thought. I say that i attend to perfect forms and those forms are real, they are not in my mind I am a realist about those forms. You yourself say that you are an idealist because you say they are only concepts in the mind. Am I wrong about that?

I stated I am an Empirical Realist and at the same time is a Transcendental Idealist.
Yes, those ideas are in my mind and they are not real, what is real to me is empirical reality that can be justified empirically and philosophically.

If you are a realist about those forms [transcendental], you are an Transcendental Realist and an Empirical Idealist.
You claim those form are real but they are transcendent beyond empirical reality, thus you are a transcendental realist.

[tapaticmadness]

Per what you have described yourself you cannot deny you are an idealist, more so a weird fanatical one.





I do not deny I am an idealist [not Berkeley's nor Plato's] in one way and empirical realist in another perspective.

Unfortunately the word "Ideal" has two meanings in English. On the one hand it means something perfect as when we say that they are an ideal couple, or this is an ideal bed, or this picturesque landscape is just ideal On the other hand it refers to those philosophies (like yours?) that say that there are concepts that we work with and they are "in the mind". They are ideas that the mind has concocted. They are not real things separate from and independent of thought. I say that i attend to perfect forms and those forms are real, they are not in my mind I am a realist about those forms. You yourself say that you are an idealist because you say they are only concepts in the mind. Am I wrong about that?

I stated I am an Empirical Realist and at the same time is a Transcendental Idealist.
Yes, those ideas are in my mind and they are not real, what is real to me is empirical reality that can be justified empirically and philosophically.

If you are a realist about those forms [transcendental], you are an Transcendental Realist and an Empirical Idealist.
You claim those form are real but they are transcendent beyond empirical reality, thus you are a transcendental realist.

Could you please lay out a list of what types of things are in your vision of empirical reality. Sorry, I really don't know what you empirically see.

[Eodnhoj7]

Spatial, not material. The only thing we understand of materiality is forms, and from form shape. Everything is interlocking shapes with the back drop always being isomorphic shapes...shapes within shapes.

Is the Space you envision quantized, broken up into discrete quanta, or one smooth continuum?

If I have "broken up discrete quanta" as two points, a smooth continuum "the line" always occurs between them. Space is the line (straight or curved).

[tapaticmadness]

Spatial, not material. The only thing we understand of materiality is forms, and from form shape. Everything is interlocking shapes with the back drop always being isomorphic shapes...shapes within shapes.

Is the Space you envision quantized, broken up into discrete quanta, or one smooth continuum?

If I have "broken up discrete quanta" as two points, a smooth continuum "the line" always occurs between them. Space is the line (straight or curved).

You are going to have problems with the Actual Infinite, unless you can shove it into the mind and keep it away from the external empirical world.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the Space you envision quantized, broken up into discrete quanta, or one smooth continuum?

If I have "broken up discrete quanta" as two points, a smooth continuum "the line" always occurs between them. Space is the line (straight or curved).

You are going to have problems with the Actual Infinite, unless you can shove it into the mind and keep it away from the external empirical world.

Not really as each space between points contains further space between points. Planck's constant is still subject to fractions as it expresses our current ability to measure.

[tapaticmadness]

If I have "broken up discrete quanta" as two points, a smooth continuum "the line" always occurs between them. Space is the line (straight or curved).

You are going to have problems with the Actual Infinite, unless you can shove it into the mind and keep it away from the external empirical world.

Not really as each space between points contains further space between points. Planck's constant is still subject to fractions as it expresses our current ability to measure.

First, if Space is infinitely divisible, transfinitely infinite, then all the paradoxes of Infinity apply to Space. Secondly, if you are considering physics and space beyond the plank constant, then you will have to deal with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which means that at very small distances the energy fluctuation is going to be so great as to tear the universe apart in an instant.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are going to have problems with the Actual Infinite, unless you can shove it into the mind and keep it away from the external empirical world.

Not really as each space between points contains further space between points. Planck's constant is still subject to fractions as it expresses our current ability to measure.

First, if Space is infinitely divisible, transfinitely infinite, then all the paradoxes of Infinity apply to Space.

Yes they would apply.

Secondly, if you are considering physics and space beyond the plank constant, then you will have to deal with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which means that at very small distances the energy fluctuation is going to be so great as to tear the universe apart in an instant.

The replication of curvature, one curve manifesting to a new curve, is space tearing into new space.

[tapaticmadness]

Not really as each space between points contains further space between points. Planck's constant is still subject to fractions as it expresses our current ability to measure.

First, if Space is infinitely divisible, transfinitely infinite, then all the paradoxes of Infinity apply to Space.

Yes they would apply.

Secondly, if you are considering physics and space beyond the plank constant, then you will have to deal with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which means that at very small distances the energy fluctuation is going to be so great as to tear the universe apart in an instant.

The replication of curvature, one curve manifesting to a new curve, is space tearing into new space.

"The replication of curvature, one curve manifesting to a new curve, is space tearing into new space." That may very well be true. Geometry is a marvelous thing. I am lately being enchanted by conformal mapping. The universe at its most extreme inflationary expansion is the same as the singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, so it becomes a repeating cycle. I'll leave it to the mathematicians to describe it.

I have always loved this beginning of a poem by Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

And this from Nietzsche's Parable of a Madman

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with
his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed
him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do
this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to
wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we
unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now?
Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging
continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there
still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of
empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we need to light
lanterns in the morning? So we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying
God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead.
God remains dead. And we have killed him.

In the geometries we are using now in physics there is no center. Indeed, back in the 1980s there was a lot of talk about self-organizing systems, no need for a controlling center. Now that idea seems dead. The chaos has spread. Entropy has increased. I personally think that after the Death of God a new god will or has appeared. He will be like Zarathustra. I have written about that extensively. Extremes meet Strange geometries appear. One space changes into another Such eternal transformation is the very essence of mythology.

One more thing, the firewall that has held for so long between the true and the false, the objective and the subjective, between fact and fiction, the real and the imaginary, that has begun to crumble in post-modernism.

[Eodnhoj7]

First, if Space is infinitely divisible, transfinitely infinite, then all the paradoxes of Infinity apply to Space.

Yes they would apply.

Secondly, if you are considering physics and space beyond the plank constant, then you will have to deal with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which means that at very small distances the energy fluctuation is going to be so great as to tear the universe apart in an instant.

The replication of curvature, one curve manifesting to a new curve, is space tearing into new space.

"The replication of curvature, one curve manifesting to a new curve, is space tearing into new space." That may very well be true. Geometry is a marvelous thing. I am lately being enchanted by conformal mapping. The universe at its most extreme inflationary expansion is the same as the singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, so it becomes a repeating cycle. I'll leave it to the mathematicians to describe it.

I have always loved this beginning of a poem by Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

And this from Nietzsche's Parable of a Madman

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with
his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed
him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do
this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to
wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we
unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now?
Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging
continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there
still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of
empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we need to light
lanterns in the morning? So we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying
God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead.
God remains dead. And we have killed him.

In the geometries we are using now in physics there is no center. Indeed, back in the 1980s there was a lot of talk about self-organizing systems, no need for a controlling center. Now that idea seems dead. The chaos has spread. Entropy has increased. I personally think that after the Death of God a new god will or has appeared. He will be like Zarathustra. I have written about that extensively. Extremes meet Strange geometries appear. One space changes into another Such eternal transformation is the very essence of mythology.

One more thing, the firewall that has held for so long between the true and the false, the objective and the subjective, between fact and fiction, the real and the imaginary, that has begun to crumble in post-modernism.

All is a center point on an infinite continuum from both sides. The cyclic nature of reality, a reality composed of infinite cycle demands that each phenomenon is a center point to some other phenomenon by recursion alone.

I disagree about the absence of a center point as all being is a center point to further being. If I am to say x shape exists and leads to y as a tautology of x, then x not only has a center point as all shapes have a center point, but is a common median in the respect all further shapes (y, y1, y2, ye, etc.) are variations of it.

Everything and everyone is a center point in some manner or another.