Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:An absolute what? The word "absolute" is an adjective and has no meaning without a referent.

Do you posit the existence of a pink?

Obvious Leo wrote:No doubt such gobbledegook might pass for profound wisdom is the opinion of some, Scott, but in Australian English the word "absolute" is a fucking ADJECTIVE.

You must be a very unhappy person. I mean, there must be a lot of pent-up frustration in you because you use adjectives that serve no purpose and polite society considers vulgar. It reflects poorly on your intelligence.

"Absolute" means "unrestricted; complete, perfect;" also "not relative to something else." Being capitalized, it implies the latter, something that is not relative to something else. "Pink" refers to something that is relative to something else, i.e., other shades of color.

So, the question I asked is valid and the one you asked is not valid because the "what" implies a referent to which the said Absolute is relative. It's basically the same mistake many people make when they hear the word "God." They automatically make all kinds of assumptions that have no bearing on what is actually being said. You, for example, have many times assumed it necessarily implies some kind of external creative agent, which is about as absurd as you can get from a philosophical point of view.

In referring to the quote from Lucy, I think it is fair to say you have codified (or modeled) your perception of existence and identified with it rather that the Real that lies beyond it.

cladking wrote: It's not impossible that all of nature is beholden to laws but humans might never know this or
even know 1% of all the laws she obeys.

This is a variation on the god hypothesis which places the nature of the universe beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. Assuming that reality operates according to a suite of laws whose origins lie external to the universe itself is a Platonist cop-out. The universe is beholden to no such laws. She just does what she does and it is WE who codify what she does and interpret this behaviour in the language of laws.

cladking wrote: Theory of Everything.



I agree with the statement because it's not contradicted by experiment and is logical. It was my understanding though that QM has ruled out such tiny little forces affecting thingsat great distance.

I need hardly remind you that QM is a theory which doesn't make the slightest lick of sense.

Obvious Leo wrote:

cladking wrote: It's not impossible that all of nature is beholden to laws but humans might never know this or
even know 1% of all the laws she obeys.

This is a variation on the god hypothesis which places the nature of the universe beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. Assuming that reality operates according to a suite of laws whose origins lie external to the universe itself is a Platonist cop-out. The universe is beholden to no such laws. She just does what she does and it is WE who codify what she does and interpret this behaviour in the language of laws.

I certainly agree that there are probably no laws. While your logic seems to have precluded the existence
of such laws altogether I reached this point from another direction where I can't really exclude the possibility
that laws exist. I don't follow the logic that says laws presume law or even that God can't exist. There is no
good reason to presume they exist and none to assume it. I do automatically exclude hypotheses that confuse
cause and effect. Shit happens and some things we can see why but most things we can't.

Science will probably never be able to predict future events because they are far too complex to yield
to any kind of math. Of course science is useful nonetheless and, of course, science does lead to knowledge
even though the knowledge is usually expressed in terms of models mistaken for reality.

cladking wrote: I do automatically exclude hypotheses that confuse
cause and effect.

This is essentially what physics does. For instance it models the sub-atomic world in terms of four fundamental "forces of nature" which CAUSE matter and energy to behave in a particular way which we can empirically measure and mathematically codify. However this is putting the cart before the horse because the origin of these so-called "forces" is thereby automatically placed beyond the reach of explanation. We are required to accept that they simply ARE, as if they exist in some mystical Platonist realm, but this assumption is reversing the natural order of cause and effect.

This modelling of the sub-atomic world ignores an inescapable fact which can explain the origin of these so-called "forces". As I stated earlier both Newton's and Einstein's models for gravity insist that the motion of each of these sub-atomic particles must causally affect the motion of all the others. However, it was Henri Poincare who was the true father of relativity, not Einstein, and Poincare had pointed out that this means that no precise trajectory for any of these particles can ever be predicted, even in principle, although in his case he was applying this logic to macro celestial bodies such as stars and planets. However it was on these grounds that Poincare utterly rejected SR as a valid physical model and it is SR that forms the conceptual backdrop for QM. Poincare was dead by the time QM was invented but he would have kicked it to the kerb without further ceremony for exactly this reason. SR is bullshit because it ignores gravity so QM is bullshit for the same reason. No precise trajectory for these sub-atomic particles can ever be predicted, even in principle, and this has nothing to do with randomness or uncaused events. This is simply a fact of nature consequent on the dynamic casual complexity of the entire system which results from the relativistic gravitational motion of the constituent particles, all of which have different masses and move at different speeds. Such a system can only be modelled probabilistically for exactly the same reason that our weather can only be modelled probabilistically. Every body with mass is a variable in the system so Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is just a simple statement of the bloody obvious. We cannot specify both the location and momentum of a particle at the same time for the simple reason that it can't have both at the same time. What the fuck did Heisenberg think "momentum" meant?

When we introduce gravity into our picture of the sub-atomic world an entirely different narrative of these "forces" presents itself. At a fundamental level we can define them as the EFFECTS of the relativistic motions of the particles and therefore as EMERGENT. Certainly in their emergent form these forces can be seen to explain higher-order phenomena but the forces themselves are seen to have a physical origin determined by gravity.

This allows us to regard the notion of the "laws of physics" entirely differently. It is not the case that reality is made according to a suite of physical laws but rather that the suite of physical laws is made according to reality. In this way all of these forces are unified into one coherent whole.

Obvious Leo wrote: This is essentially what physics does. For instance it models the sub-atomic world in terms of four fundamental "forces of nature" which CAUSE matter and energy to behave in a particular way which we can empirically measure and mathematically codify. However this is putting the cart before the horse because the origin of these so-called "forces" is thereby automatically placed beyond the reach of explanation. We are required to accept that they simply ARE, as if they exist in some mystical Platonist realm, but this assumption is reversing the natural order of cause and effect.

This modelling of the sub-atomic world ignores an inescapable fact which can explain the origin of these so-called "forces". As I stated earlier both Newton's and Einstein's models for gravity insist that the motion of each of these sub-atomic particles must causally affect the motion of all the others. However, it was Henri Poincare who was the true father of relativity, not Einstein, and Poincare had pointed out that this means that no precise trajectory for any of these particles can ever be predicted, even in principle, although in his case he was applying this logic to macro celestial bodies such as stars and planets. However it was on these grounds that Poincare utterly rejected SR as a valid physical model and it is SR that forms the conceptual backdrop for QM. Poincare was dead by the time QM was invented but he would have kicked it to the kerb without further ceremony for exactly this reason. SR is bullshit because it ignores gravity so QM is bullshit for the same reason. No precise trajectory for these sub-atomic particles can ever be predicted, even in principle, and this has nothing to do with randomness or uncaused events. This is simply a fact of nature consequent on the dynamic casual complexity of the entire system which results from the relativistic gravitational motion of the constituent particles, all of which have different masses and move at different speeds. Such a system can only be modelled probabilistically for exactly the same reason that our weather can only be modelled probabilistically. Every body with mass is a variable in the system so Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is just a simple statement of the bloody obvious. We cannot specify both the location and momentum of a particle at the same time for the simple reason that it can't have both at the same time. What the fuck did Heisenberg think "momentum" meant?

When we introduce gravity into our picture of the sub-atomic world an entirely different narrative of these "forces" presents itself. At a fundamental level we can define them as the EFFECTS of the relativistic motions of the particles and therefore as EMERGENT. Certainly in their emergent form these forces can be seen to explain higher-order phenomena but the forces themselves are seen to have a physical origin determined by gravity.

This allows us to regard the notion of the "laws of physics" entirely differently. It is not the case that reality is made according to a suite of physical laws but rather that the suite of physical laws is made according to reality. In this way all of these forces are unified into one coherent whole.

Thanks very much.

I suppose I could sum up my understanding of this as "existence is an emergent property of reality itself".

The concept is both satisfying and leaves me wanting far more. ...Just like real life.

cladking wrote:I suppose I could sum up my understanding of this as "existence is an emergent property of reality itself".

The central unification of physics rests on the unification of some very simple concepts. I find it more convenient to regard the terms "existence", "reality" and "universe" as entirely synonymous constructs. When we say that "the universe exists" or that "reality exists" we are in fact making simple but tautologous statements about the nature of being, which is the entire goal of metaphysics. If we honour the ancient philosophical mantra that Simplicity is Truth we need merely state the most blindly obvious tautology of them all and say that EXISTENCE EXISTS. However when we say that existence exists we need to pay close attention to the tense of the verb "to exist" because the nature of being can only be understood in terms of an ever-moving present. To say that "I am" is to make a statement about the nature of a physical reality which exists, whereas to say that "I was" or "I will be" is merely to make a statement about a reality which once existed or may exist in the future. The past MAKES the future through the nexus of the present a blatantly obvious truth which physics manages to deny.

This simple but elegant presentism restores our understanding of time to its central place in our understanding of reality. In GR Einstein revealed the great truth of time by defining it as merely an alternative way of understanding gravity and this is the elephant in the room of physics which all the geeks have spent the past century looking for. Their truths are hidden in plain sight because they have been buried under a mountain of mathematical obfuscation where the models and the reality have been conflated. Quantum gravity is a non-problem which has nothing to do with physics but everything to do with the way we think the world we live in.

The universe/reality/existence is an EVENT. It is NOT a PLACE.

cladking wrote:The concept is both satisfying and leaves me wanting far more.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

Obvious Leo wrote:The central unification of physics rests on the unification of some very simple concepts. I find it more convenient to regard the terms "existence", "reality" and "universe" as entirely synonymous constructs. When we say that "the universe exists" or that "reality exists" we are in fact making simple but tautologous statements about the nature of being, which is the entire goal of metaphysics. If we honour the ancient philosophical mantra that Simplicity is Truth we need merely state the most blindly obvious tautology of them all and say that EXISTENCE EXISTS. However when we say that existence exists we need to pay close attention to the tense of the verb "to exist" because the nature of being can only be understood in terms of an ever-moving present. To say that "I am" is to make a statement about the nature of a physical reality which exists, whereas to say that "I was" or "I will be" is merely to make a statement about a reality which once existed or may exist in the future. The past MAKES the future through the nexus of the present a blatantly obvious truth which physics manages to deny.

This simple but elegant presentism restores our understanding of time to its central place in our understanding of reality. In GR Einstein revealed the great truth of time by defining it as merely an alternative way of understanding gravity and this is the elephant in the room of physics which all the geeks have spent the past century looking for. Their truths are hidden in plain sight because they have been buried under a mountain of mathematical obfuscation where the models and the reality have been conflated. Quantum gravity is a non-problem which has nothing to do with physics but everything to do with the way we think the world we live in.

What I meant here was simply that reality could manifest in a very large number of different ways even though there was only a single way to achieve this particular time. This event in which we find ourselves could have been a different event and we can still change the way it plays out in the future. Hence is a very real way existence is an emergent property of reality at least as I define the terms. Your results may vary.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

Remarkable!!!

I've never agreed with anyone so closely before. You've thought much of this out much further than I and came at it head on while I came to it from a back road and using math initially.

cladking wrote: You've thought much of this out much further than I and came at it head on

I came at it from the inside looking out because to me the problem of spacetime physics was always the problem of the observer. The observer does not observe reality at all, he MAPS it. This is not bleeding edge opinionated pseudo-science but basic knowledge which is accepted as mainstream thought throughout the rest of the scientific community but which is completely ignored by physics. The arrogant shitheads are just behaving like arrogant shitheads because this has also been common knowledge in most of the major philosophical schools throughout millennia of history.

Physicists couldn't find their own arseholes if you gave them a stick with a mirror on it because they've fallen in love with their equations and in their own narcissistic vanity they've decided that they're smarter than the rest of us. When they discover that their models make no sense do they conclude that there might be something wrong with these models? NO FUCKING WAY DO THEY!!!! Instead they decide that we'll need to redefine what we understand by making sense. The sheer hubris of these jerks is breathtaking and it is this hubris which prevents them from seeing the truth hidden in plain sight. Their unification model is staring them in the face as soon as they accept that:

SPACETIME IS BULLSHIT

cladking wrote:I came to it from a back road and using math initially.

This is putting the cart before the horse. Maths cannot model reality but only a particular narrative of reality. The narrative I write of in my philosophy is the narrative of the bloody obvious.

Q. What is the most strikingly obvious and yet most extraordinary feature of the universe which I observe?

A. The fact that I am in it.

There is only one possible explanation for this most extraordinary phenomenon of my own existence because I'm not so vain as to believe that there's anything particularly special about me. I am merely the emergent expression of a particular configuration of matter and energy so what is true for me must be equally true for every other physical entity in the universe. I exist because the universe has evolved in such a way as to make my existence possible, therefore evolution must be the fundamental self-organising principle of the universe.

Since every scrap of evidence for the past 13.8 billion years supports this proposition I regard the case as made.

You keep begging the stupidity of math and logic here as functionally unmeaningful here, Leo. If you don't find such thinking rational, you can't expect value of using it to defend your own position. If numbers, math, models, laws, or any logical means are allowed, why should anyone trust what you have to say regarding them? What is your basis in reasoning at all?

Scott Mayers wrote:You keep begging the stupidity of math and logic here as functionally unmeaningful here, Leo.

When did I say that? When did I even ONCE insinuate that math and logic were in any way related?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:You keep begging the stupidity of math and logic here as functionally unmeaningful here, Leo.

When did I say that? When did I even ONCE insinuate that math and logic were in any way related?

You miss the point here, Leo. I was't even concerned whether you relate math to logic but was being inclusive to what I believe covers both here. I feel that your apparent rationale lacks conforming to reasoning consistently without accepting either logic or math, including models here, as a proper reality.

I don't doubt that I'm in the minority here and personally don't care as I continue to fight for my own view on this with confidence. But it's also getting tiresome as I recognize that I don't see a hope for ever convincing people of anything using normal direct reasoning skills or any amount of 'truth'. [And this is NOT about you here specifically but just as much about personal issues with others in my life and the world at large. So don't take it personally.]

I believe that truth and reasoning only operate and have affect where the people involved are willing to participate with those they already like and relate to by some default of their character, personality, and, generally, power in some way that appeals to our evolutionary status as mere animals. That is, genetic appeals including those with power are the ones who even have a chance of being listened to. And this is even sadly 'rational' for the sake of our function as biological creatures that in turn belong to a physical world that lacks any compassion for its nature.

It's getting me depressed, as I'm sure it relates to many of us on these online forums, as we compete for ideas. We share a common thread here in that I'm confident that if we had an emotional justification to be doing something else instead, none of us would bother caring to be here. I can sense people's frustrations in the way many people prefer insulting others or their ideas using emotionally laden words rather than prefer the value of logical reasoning. And this is my point here with regards to some of your language and interpretation by dismissing the significance of models, formal logic, math, or any of these 'tools' as REAL. I think that most humans dismiss these as real only because they don't justify one's emotional realities with more impact. To the vast majority of people, or any animal, what is predefined as 'real' always defaults to what they can sense directly without questioning. I interpret even apparently non-emotional perceptions, like sight or sound, as emotional in that they filter everything in terms of what people favor or disfavor. Note how the term, "matter", even has a dual functionally intentional meaning that relates both "what is Real" and "what is important for me (emotionally)". It demonstrates the truth of what I'm saying. And almost all of the scientific or philosophic terms seem to act in this duel way too. "Chaos" is both a mere description of fluidity, disorder, or imperfectly distinguishable determination OR to the emotional feeling of dissatisfaction due to such uncertainty. [I already know that others will disagree even with this definition where they intend to use this term descriptively but try to divorce it from the emotional intention.]

Another term, is "God", for instance, where I believe that at some point people struggled to make sense of reality by merely assigning a term that acted as a mere variable, like an unknown, 'X'. But people are unsatisfied with the nature of variability to some initial unknown cause. And so they prefer to beg this concept to refer to something more consistent, and it becomes reassigned to relate to one's emotional preference to assume it constant and fixed. So it becomes a "good" thing for these people. That is why the bible describes every step this source initiates in nature by saying:

And God saw that it was good.

It appears odd to impose this statement but indicates how we think that nature itself requires a source that is CONSTANT, and invariable. This is where and why I interpret reality as originating in a contradiction. That is, to me, nature is variable at its source. It is both one thing and nothing. I argue for nothingness as a 'source' value but interpret it in the way that it acts with the same infinity that you prefer to think reality begins with instead. At least this makes it both ONE value AND multiple values infinitely. And thus even one thing is indistinguishable to nothing (or infinity) too.

While these logical values seem human-made to you, I believe that it is just due to your own inability to feel that we require the fixed nature of certainty that comes about when we can perfectly determine one specific truth as you emotionally experience life. I also see that your preference for defaulting to an infinite set of things is also indistinguishable from the same nothingness that I appeal to instead.

To me, the "bloody obvious" is what I'm saying here: That nature itself is a product of something that lacks initial meaning as a constant or fixed thing even though it contradicts, a 'feeling' also of discomfort as it doesn't allow us to make 'sense' of it with one unique and constant (invariable) certainty.

This does NOT mean that there is no rational logical understanding in my mind. I find closure in understanding that nature is both about closure and non-closure in a simultaneously closed and eternally non-closed way . Reality IS a function of this abstraction. And just because we require using relatively arbitrary human-created words that act as MODELS to map onto this reality, it doesn't make this less real, but more real. And this is my argument here. If we don't accept this, it is not because it isn't true but because it doesn't satisfy us emotionally only.

Scott. Please don't bother offering me any further lectures on logic while you continue to claim that something can come from nothing and the only way to explain the existence of our universe is by assuming the existence of an infinite number of universes which this one is not.

Scott Mayers wrote: the same infinity that you prefer to think reality begins with instead.

I've warned you plenty of times not to criticise a persons words without first reading them. Not only is this the epitome of discourtesy it is also the height of stupidity. I never ever ever said that reality began.

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Please don't bother offering me any further lectures on logic while you continue to claim that something can come from nothing and the only way to explain the existence of our universe is by assuming the existence of an infinite number of universes which this one is not.

Your privileged to your ignorance here. I don't care. You prefer a 'God' hypothesis: that we are significantly so important to presume what is 'real' is only about what you feel comfortable with emotionally. Yours is just such as you pretend what is locally observable to you is all that is real. But don't pretend that you can feign intellectual wisdom by defeating the reality of the logic I present.

Obvious Leo wrote: I've warned you plenty of times not to criticise a persons words without first reading them. Not only is this the epitome of discourtesy it is also the height of stupidity. I never ever ever said that reality began.

And the fact that you can't interpret me appropriately here only presents your own inability to read what I say correctly. I've read enough of your words to know you lack credibility by your own chaotic approach. I asked you to present an abstract that is easy to follow. But your linked blog goes on and on with only an apparent digress into irrationality. And I assure you I gave you more charity than you give anyone else who merely disagrees with you as you continue to insult others without warrant. If you demand others read you fully, you have to do the same for those you oppose in physics, logic, math, etc... . Instead, you simply dismiss them all as 'stupid', as being sooo clearly obvious to you! Stick with poetry. That seems something you prefer.

Scott Mayers wrote:
This does NOT mean that there is no rational logical understanding in my mind. I find closure in understanding that nature is both about closure and non-closure in a simultaneously closed and eternally non-closed way . Reality IS a function of this abstraction. And just because we require using relatively arbitrary human-created words that act as MODELS to map onto this reality, it doesn't make this less real, but more real. And this is my argument here. If we don't accept this, it is not because it isn't true but because it doesn't satisfy us emotionally only.

I doubt anyone sympathizes with your post more than I. This probably won't relieve the angst but if you just remember we are all talking apes It might help put things in the proper perspective. We believe we are "intelligent" but this simply isn't so and our ability to communicate our thoughts is highly restricted. Our thinking can allow us to approach the truth if we tease out each facet of the logic but even if we find it we probably can't communicate it. Each listener takes his own meaning and we don't say exactly what we mean anyway. Say what youwill about newtonian mechanics and the like but at least such concepts give everyone a common language and it has to be based in some form on reality or our machines wouldn't work.

I personally suspect that ObviousLeo has gone beyond metaphysics and teased out some truths. Of course I'm prone to think this because some of these I've "found" myself so, obviously, I'm going to agree.

By the same token though your comments are always highly consistent which are hallmarks of truth and reality. I might agree with the above if I understood what you mean by "nature is about closure" and how it can be "closed".

My own personal theory is that time is related to energy exactly as energy is related to matter. The universe is simply far older than generally believed. Time is everything and reality is an event. It occurs with some components that are harmonic if they have an odd number of "causations" and are chaotic with an even number.

Humans are just tossed into the whole thing with the quaint ideas they are intelligent and history started 2000 years ago. We're each in this alone so of course there's going to be a lot of angst and doubly so since on some level we all know this just ain't quite right.