Protagoras vs Socrates

[Veritas Aequitas]

The dot exists through man but is not limited to man as such it maintains a degree of unconditionality as it is not limited to certain conditions. It is absolute as existing and is the origin and end of all phenomena and represents the totality of being.

We know it is unconditional of man's observation given man cannot observe past the simple point/dot. It exists through man's awareness but is not limited to man's awareness as it is the limit of man's awareness.

In observing the simple dot/point not only is the limits of awareness are manifested but the totality of the point cannot be observed given any closer analysis results in more points. Its recursion necessitates a state of being beyond man's observation.

Do you really know the "dot" and that it is unconditional or rather you are merely speculating and guessing?

It is the beginning and end of man's awareness. It exists as beyond man's awareness given it is the limit of man's awareness. Any observation of the dot results in further dots thus the totality of the dot exists as beyond man's awareness.


"Know" imply there is objective knowledge of that thing.
Where is your proof, verification and justification of that knowledge that that dot exists unconditionally.

One dot results in many dots, and many dots result again in one dot. The dot exists through the dot.

Btw, in the case of emergence, existing unconditionally is an oxymoron.

The dot emerges from the dot thus is unconditional.

Take a simple dot, say this red dot "."
It that a really a real dot-in-itself?
If you take a strong microscope at look at it, there are only pixels if if you look deeper that are only bits of dark spots.
Where is the real dot in this case?
Further dots, as that which composes the pixels are observed.


If you look more deeper you will end up with sub-atomic particles which existence are conditional and could either be a wave or a particle depending on the specific condition.
So where is that ultimate dot-in-itself?

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

It is the same with your claim there is an unconditional dot, and if you reflect deeper that is no such thing as a dot-in-itself. That unconditional 'dot' which is irrational is merely your speculation and guess work.

False, the dot exists through the dot.

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

Closer Inspection???
Closer inspection with what and by whom?

Are you even familiar with the Wave-Particle dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above implied whatever is a final 'dot' is reduced to 'observation' or your 'closer inspection'.

There are no final dots to be discovered by closer inspection.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you really know the "dot" and that it is unconditional or rather you are merely speculating and guessing?

It is the beginning and end of man's awareness. It exists as beyond man's awareness given it is the limit of man's awareness. Any observation of the dot results in further dots thus the totality of the dot exists as beyond man's awareness.


"Know" imply there is objective knowledge of that thing.
Where is your proof, verification and justification of that knowledge that that dot exists unconditionally.

One dot results in many dots, and many dots result again in one dot. The dot exists through the dot.

Btw, in the case of emergence, existing unconditionally is an oxymoron.

The dot emerges from the dot thus is unconditional.

Take a simple dot, say this red dot "."
It that a really a real dot-in-itself?
If you take a strong microscope at look at it, there are only pixels if if you look deeper that are only bits of dark spots.
Where is the real dot in this case?
Further dots, as that which composes the pixels are observed.


If you look more deeper you will end up with sub-atomic particles which existence are conditional and could either be a wave or a particle depending on the specific condition.
So where is that ultimate dot-in-itself?

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

It is the same with your claim there is an unconditional dot, and if you reflect deeper that is no such thing as a dot-in-itself. That unconditional 'dot' which is irrational is merely your speculation and guess work.

False, the dot exists through the dot.

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

Closer Inspection???
Closer inspection with what and by whom?

By man and the universe. The universe as self referencing in the respect that all is composed of points self referencing to further points. All observations begin and end with points thus all observations are the point existing self referentially. The universe is self aware and self awareness is unconditional given it is universal self referential loop. Observation, as a loop, is a thing in itself.

Are you even familiar with the Wave-Particle dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above implied whatever is a final 'dot' is reduced to 'observation' or your 'closer inspection'.

There are no final dots to be discovered by closer inspection.

Both the particle and wave are composed of dots. The particle's circumference is composed of dots. The wave, as alternating lines, is composed of dots.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

Closer Inspection???
Closer inspection with what and by whom?

Are you even familiar with the Wave-Particle dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above implied whatever is a final 'dot' is reduced to 'observation' or your 'closer inspection'.

There are no final dots to be discovered by closer inspection.

Both the particle and wave are composed of dots. The particle's circumference is composed of dots. The wave, as alternating lines, is composed of dots.

Didn't expect you to be so stupid.
The alternative lines in dots are merely a pixel-pictorial representation of the wave on the screen.
Waves are not made of dots.
The dots are the pixel of the screen not of the wave per se.

Your use of 'dot' in representing reality as-it-is is wrong.

According the Quantum Mechanics [justified, proven and applied] the most finest interpretation of reality, what is real is reduce to "observation" [not mere seeing but a complex process].
This "observation" is activated by man.
Re OP, therefore man is the measure of all things - Protagoras

What you are claiming are merely personal blabbering.
Provide links of researches and proofs that support your claims.

[Eodnhoj7]

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

Closer Inspection???
Closer inspection with what and by whom?

Are you even familiar with the Wave-Particle dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above implied whatever is a final 'dot' is reduced to 'observation' or your 'closer inspection'.

There are no final dots to be discovered by closer inspection.

Both the particle and wave are composed of dots. The particle's circumference is composed of dots. The wave, as alternating lines, is composed of dots.

Didn't expect you to be so stupid.
The alternative lines in dots are merely a pixel-pictorial representation of the wave on the screen.
Waves are not made of dots.
The dots are the pixel of the screen not of the wave per se.

False a wave is an alternating line and as an alternating line is composed of points. The line is composed of infinite points in standard mathematics.

Your use of 'dot' in representing reality as-it-is is wrong.

According the Quantum Mechanics [justified, proven and applied] the most finest interpretation of reality, what is real is reduce to "observation" [not mere seeing but a complex process].
This "observation" is activated by man.
Re OP, therefore man is the measure of all things - Protagoras

Yet both states exist simultaneously when unobserved thus both the wave and particle, as composed of points, necessitates the underlying phenomenon as composed of point space.

What you are claiming are merely personal blabbering.
Provide links of researches and proofs that support your claims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

"A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

Closer Inspection???
Closer inspection with what and by whom?

Are you even familiar with the Wave-Particle dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse



The above implied whatever is a final 'dot' is reduced to 'observation' or your 'closer inspection'.

There are no final dots to be discovered by closer inspection.

Both the particle and wave are composed of dots. The particle's circumference is composed of dots. The wave, as alternating lines, is composed of dots.

Didn't expect you to be so stupid.
The alternative lines in dots are merely a pixel-pictorial representation of the wave on the screen.
Waves are not made of dots.
The dots are the pixel of the screen not of the wave per se.

False a wave is an alternating line and as an alternating line is composed of points. The line is composed of infinite points in standard mathematics.

Your use of 'dot' in representing reality as-it-is is wrong.

According the Quantum Mechanics [justified, proven and applied] the most finest interpretation of reality, what is real is reduce to "observation" [not mere seeing but a complex process].
This "observation" is activated by man.
Re OP, therefore man is the measure of all things - Protagoras

Yet both states exist simultaneously when unobserved thus both the wave and particle, as composed of points, necessitates the underlying phenomenon as composed of point space.

What you are claiming are merely personal blabbering.
Provide links of researches and proofs that support your claims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

"A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics."

From your link above,

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume.
For example, the atomic orbit of an electron in the hydrogen atom occupies a volume of ~10−30 m3.
There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure: A proton is made of three quarks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

On a different perspective;

Elementary particles are sometimes called "point particles", but this is in a different sense than discussed above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

Whatever 'dot' or 'point,' QM support my view that there are no 'dot-in-itself' or 'point-in-itself'. There are no absolutely-absolute dot or point.

Note my thread,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewforum.php?f=8

This completely debunked your claim there is any absolute dot or point that is independent of human interaction and support the point,

Man is the measure of all things - Protagoras.

[Eodnhoj7]

Didn't expect you to be so stupid.
The alternative lines in dots are merely a pixel-pictorial representation of the wave on the screen.
Waves are not made of dots.
The dots are the pixel of the screen not of the wave per se.

False a wave is an alternating line and as an alternating line is composed of points. The line is composed of infinite points in standard mathematics.

Your use of 'dot' in representing reality as-it-is is wrong.

According the Quantum Mechanics [justified, proven and applied] the most finest interpretation of reality, what is real is reduce to "observation" [not mere seeing but a complex process].
This "observation" is activated by man.
Re OP, therefore man is the measure of all things - Protagoras

Yet both states exist simultaneously when unobserved thus both the wave and particle, as composed of points, necessitates the underlying phenomenon as composed of point space.

What you are claiming are merely personal blabbering.
Provide links of researches and proofs that support your claims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

"A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics."

From your link above,

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume.
For example, the atomic orbit of an electron in the hydrogen atom occupies a volume of ~10−30 m3.
There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure: A proton is made of three quarks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

And each quark, as composed of a shape thus a circumferance, necessitates that circumferance as composed of points as the quark is broken down into points.

On a different perspective;

Elementary particles are sometimes called "point particles", but this is in a different sense than discussed above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

Whatever 'dot' or 'point,' QM support my view that there are no 'dot-in-itself' or 'point-in-itself'. There are no absolutely-absolute dot or point.

The dot/point exists through the line as an unraveled circumference. The line is composed of infinite points as infinite lines given the line is always the distance between two pointsl

[color]

Note my thread,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewforum.php?f=8

This completely debunked your claim there is any absolute dot or point that is independent of human interaction and support the point,

Man is the measure of all things - Protagoras.

False, observation begins with fundamental void given what lies behind a thought is absolutely nothing. An example of this would be observing a fundamental thought. The thought exists but behind the thought is nothing with this Nothingness being the gap between one thought and another.

A thought, gap, thought form takes hold and is similar to a line. The underlying gap behind the thought necessitates the point as an a priori limit to the nature of thought itself and exists through thought but is not limited to it. In simpler terms the point exists through the act if observation but is not limited to thought as it exists independent of thought as the limit of it. The void, as the gap between thoughts exists as independent of human observation, yet exists through it. Void, as the gap, is the point of change between one observation and another and as void necessitates observation as not only a thing in itself but not limited to human means alone.

I have no disagreement with man being co creator of reality but this co creator necessitates a creator beyond it as man as a phenomenon is empty in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To answer the above, not my reply in the other thread.

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

[Eodnhoj7]

To answer the above, not my reply in the other thread.

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

You ignore the whole point about the point, pardon the pun, existing beyond man's thoughts.

1. "Man as measurer" is a thing.
2. No thing exists in itself.
3. Man as measurer does not exist in itself thus necessitating a measurer beyond it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To answer the above, not my reply in the other thread.

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

You ignore the whole point about the point, pardon the pun, existing beyond man's thoughts.

1. "Man as measurer" is a thing.
2. No thing exists in itself.
3. Man as measurer does not exist in itself thus necessitating a measurer beyond it.

1. There is no thing-in-itself
2. Your measurer-beyond-whatever is a thing-in-itself
3. Therefore there is no measurer-in-itself beyond man or whatever.

[Eodnhoj7]

To answer the above, not my reply in the other thread.



1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

You ignore the whole point about the point, pardon the pun, existing beyond man's thoughts.

1. "Man as measurer" is a thing.
2. No thing exists in itself.
3. Man as measurer does not exist in itself thus necessitating a measurer beyond it.

1. There is no thing-in-itself
2. Your measurer-beyond-whatever is a thing-in-itself
3. Therefore there is no measurer-in-itself beyond man or whatever.

1. The measurer beyond man is not a thing in itself as man is co measurer.

2. Man, as a no thing in itself, necessitates a measurer beyond man.

3. The measurer beyond man has man which is beyond the measurer and a loop occurs where a measurer exists both beyond man and beyond the measurer that is beyond man.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You ignore the whole point about the point, pardon the pun, existing beyond man's thoughts.

1. "Man as measurer" is a thing.
2. No thing exists in itself.
3. Man as measurer does not exist in itself thus necessitating a measurer beyond it.

1. There is no thing-in-itself
2. Your measurer-beyond-whatever is a thing-in-itself
3. Therefore there is no measurer-in-itself beyond man or whatever.

1. The measurer beyond man is not a thing in itself as man is co measurer.

2. Man, as a no thing in itself, necessitates a measurer beyond man.

3. The measurer beyond man has man which is beyond the measurer and a loop occurs where a measurer exists both beyond man and beyond the measurer that is beyond man.

When I ask for proof or at least a basis of proof that that-which-exists-beyond-man as real, you give all sort of excuses.

What you are heading towards is infinite regression and thus an inherent cognitive dissonance which forces you for consonance thus forcing something ultimate as real to be the final beyond.

Note I posted this somewhere;

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Note Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. There is no thing-in-itself
2. Your measurer-beyond-whatever is a thing-in-itself
3. Therefore there is no measurer-in-itself beyond man or whatever.

1. The measurer beyond man is not a thing in itself as man is co measurer.

2. Man, as a no thing in itself, necessitates a measurer beyond man.

3. The measurer beyond man has man which is beyond the measurer and a loop occurs where a measurer exists both beyond man and beyond the measurer that is beyond man.

When I ask for proof or at least a basis of proof that that-which-exists-beyond-man as real, you give all sort of excuses.

What you are heading towards is infinite regression and thus an inherent cognitive dissonance which forces you for consonance thus forcing something ultimate as real to be the final beyond.

Note I posted this somewhere;

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Note Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.

Total proof of anything is impossible as proof requires some other proof beyond it which is unproven. At best proof is definition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. The measurer beyond man is not a thing in itself as man is co measurer.

2. Man, as a no thing in itself, necessitates a measurer beyond man.

3. The measurer beyond man has man which is beyond the measurer and a loop occurs where a measurer exists both beyond man and beyond the measurer that is beyond man.

When I ask for proof or at least a basis of proof that that-which-exists-beyond-man as real, you give all sort of excuses.

What you are heading towards is infinite regression and thus an inherent cognitive dissonance which forces you for consonance thus forcing something ultimate as real to be the final beyond.

Note I posted this somewhere;

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Note Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.

Total proof of anything is impossible as proof requires some other proof beyond it which is unproven. At best proof is definition.

I did not ask for total proof.
I asked for conventional proofs based on the empirical and the philosophical, e.g. on a scientific basis.

I stated if you cannot produce empirical evidences now, then demonstrate to me that-which-exists-beyond-man is empirically possible.
Example, I don't have evidence now but I believe [a hypothesis] human-liked aliens exists in a Planet 100 light years away. This is empirically possible because the bolded variables are empirically true, thus the hypothesis is empirically possible.

[Nick_A]

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

Maybe they feel the need to return home or to their source. Why does a salmon return to the place of its origin? The salmon returns to die while the human being returns to live. This refers to Simone Weil when she was near death

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

[Veritas Aequitas]

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

Maybe they feel the need to return home or to their source. Why does a salmon return to the place of its origin? The salmon returns to die while the human being returns to live. This refers to Simone Weil when she was near death

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

Then why do they need to return of their source, which is not verifiable, justifiable and provable anyway.

Note my response in your other thread which is relevant.
viewtopic.php?p=484264#p484264
The ultimate cause is an existential psychological issue to seek consonance to resolve an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

If theists were to do a personal experiment in trying merely to give up their belief in a God totally for a day or even for a while, they will instantly feel very uneasy and uncomfortable because the consonance that is holding the dissonance is loosening thus their need to grasp to the consonance tightly.
Try it.
This is why when theists transit to become non-theists they have to suffer a long period of cold-turkey.

How strongly each theist clings on to the consonance 'God exists as real' comes in degrees.
At the extreme, some theists will kill those [& do whatever to stop the threat] who threaten their consonance since dissonance is very painful on the primal scale.
This is so evident with theists killing non-believers and the prevalence of blasphemy laws to prevent others [rational] from critiquing their irrational God.