Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Russell was wrong. What he should have written is, "What it seems to us, is not what it actually is." The fault was never in the table (reality), but always in the perceiver (to whom it "seems").

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:30 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am
We can rely on Dialetheism and Intuitionistic_logic.

There is no need to abandon Classical Logic.
The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.

Actually they can:

[(P=P)=(-P=-P)] --> [((P=P)&(P/=P))-->(P/=-P)]

***"=" is "-->" and "<--"
***((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid under a truth table calculator




P and Not P are equal to eachother through the law of identity as both are subject to it.

As equal through the law of identity P is equal to P and not equal to P, therefore P is not equal to P consdierng -P is a variable that fits inside of P due to the law of identity. -P=-P necessitates P=-P...this however necessitates P as having multiple meaning is not always equal to itself so P both equals and does not equal P (schrodinger's cat). It P does not equal P, then P also does not equal -P.

What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

Perspectives are subject to time due to dynamic change as they assume the environment empirically and assuming their own abstractions.
A diamond can both be hard and soft at the same time but depending on which perspective one is looking at it.

Not if the perspective is one of superposition time zones.

In the ordinary sense, a diamond is hard, but it would be soft if we use an electron laser.

Superpositioning.

The table is both real and not real as an instrincially empty context.

I mentioned 'nano-seconds.'
I would say, at different times and different perspectives.
However it is different times but the split is in terms of at the minutest nano-second at the speed near to speed of light, which mean the different perspectives toggle between each other in the minutest nano-second from one to the other.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:30 pm

Superpositioning.

The table is both real and not real as an instrincially empty context.

I mentioned 'nano-seconds.'
I would say, at different times and different perspectives.
However it is different times but the split is in terms of at the minutest nano-second at the speed near to speed of light, which mean the different perspectives toggle between each other in the minutest nano-second from one to the other.

Not really as you are dealing with subconscious calculations at that point that are not really subject to time as they are without form. It sounds like I am busting your balls, and I like doing it, but the truth of it is it isn't about busting your balls either.

Now this is where I "rant":

When you are dealing with any perceivable manner of time, or more specifically any length of time, we are still stuck with basic spatial measurements as time is inseperable from space.

If I travel x distance using a simple water dropping from a roof as a measurement of time, I am fundamentally measuring time according to some movement. The repition of that movement again and again is what constitutes that standard of time. The closer the movements are in both repitition with the least variation between repitition the more accurate the system of measurement.

The spin of cesium, if memory serves (and it probably doesn't in this case), is the most accurate form of measurement in this case. It is this "spin" that is the movement from one position back to it's original position that determines a length of time. This repetition of spins, with each spin being determined by a circumference ends up being a length when straightened out.

A water drop falling, while less accurate, is still a length.

It is the Distance that a particle travels that determines time, but it is not distance alone but velocity as well. How fast does the particle move from point A to point B...but this speed again is subject to another prior movement as well.

So if particle X spins 10,000 times in the time it takes from particle Y to move from one position to another, these we can observe that y/x equals a unit of time measurement.

10,000 lengths of one particle fits into the length of another particle, with the length of the particle strictly being the movement of one point to another considering no particle can exist without movement. This movement is alternation.

So we can observe the particle x is 10,000 lengths that fits into particles x 1 length...this is a basic observation of a length of space whether you want it or not.

Time is a ratio of linear distances.

The reason why particle x is more accurate than particle y is because.

1. There is very little variation in each one of the 10,000 spins, thus each length is fundamentally the same... thus closer to a singularity as the same thing repeating...again and again and again.

2. Each spin, as a circumference thus a length, is so small and so fast (high in number of reps relative to the rep of something else) that one length fundamentally fits into the fast number of lengths larger than it. A sub millimeter can fit into 100 feet more than 1 foot fitting into 100 feet...because it is so small it becomes more universal as an underlying medium.

Another example may be that while I may have a room full of various types of furniture, the one common element that unites all of them may be quarks (this is just an example as there is more in common than the quark)

3. Each spin is thus a length and time once again is strictly the distance between two points, with there being an infinite number of points to choose from as all objects at a distance become points...you could even observe the constellations rather than atoms.

4. Thus at the end of the day, time is strictly just a line...it is grounded in 1 line and we measure it by how we divided the line with further lines (considering all movements are dependent upon alternation there always is a length). This line, in and of itself, is fundamentally infinite until it is divided into further lines (lines segments according to mathematicians).

5. Considering all measurement is grounded in this one line, we are left with a paradox where the distance between two points effectively is instantaneous until we observe another set of lines divide them. All base measurements requiring an indivisible unity require instantantanous transfer.

6. Now this instantaneous transfer as a fraction of some other line becomes a simple dot. If I see the length of one spin (circumference rolled out) of a cesium particle and compare it to a millimeter it becomes a dot. Relatively speaking, this smallest unit of measurement, because of its distance (due to a size differential) will always be a dot. It only becomes a length when compare to some other particle that is smaller...in which case a single spin as a length also becomes a dot.

7. Instantaneous is thus grounded in a void in one respect because of this above point, but also because a simple dot appearing as another dot necessitates a bilocality where two phenomenon exist in two different positions at one time...one time being instantaneous.

8. Instantaneous transfer is grounded in a zero dimensionality, point space, or a length approaching 0 (very, very small). Considering instantaneous transfer occurs through void, void acts as a quantum medium and this emptiness is synonymous metaphorically and literally to the empty nature of a mind assuming phenomenon.

The mind as assuming is thus above time as its assumptive nature makes it intrinsically empty, thus leaving the subconscious as that which Inverts on image/experience/memory into another a timeless...considering one form changing to another form at its base level of one line changing to 2 or more lines is formless.

Intuitively, when one assumes reality for what it is, one is "lost in the moment" or a sense of timelessness occurs due to an absence of differentiation.

In these respects time is not only highly, highly relative but the subconscious nature of the mind is not subject to any length of time as any formation of these lengths is self reference (forming a measurement through the self then measuring the self through the measurement is strictly looping the self through a passive and active projection).

The subconsciousness, at its root nature of assuming reality...is empty, thus not subject to time but underlying it.

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:12 am
I mentioned 'nano-seconds.'
I would say, at different times and different perspectives.
However it is different times but the split is in terms of at the minutest nano-second at the speed near to speed of light, which mean the different perspectives toggle between each other in the minutest nano-second from one to the other.

Not really as you are dealing with subconscious calculations at that point that are not really subject to time as they are without form. It sounds like I am busting your balls, and I like doing it, but the truth of it is it isn't about busting your balls either.

Now this is where I "rant":

When you are dealing with any perceivable manner of time, or more specifically any length of time, we are still stuck with basic spatial measurements as time is inseperable from space.

If I travel x distance using a simple water dropping from a roof as a measurement of time, I am fundamentally measuring time according to some movement. The repition of that movement again and again is what constitutes that standard of time. The closer the movements are in both repitition with the least variation between repitition the more accurate the system of measurement.

The spin of cesium, if memory serves (and it probably doesn't in this case), is the most accurate form of measurement in this case. It is this "spin" that is the movement from one position back to it's original position that determines a length of time. This repetition of spins, with each spin being determined by a circumference ends up being a length when straightened out.

A water drop falling, while less accurate, is still a length.

It is the Distance that a particle travels that determines time, but it is not distance alone but velocity as well. How fast does the particle move from point A to point B...but this speed again is subject to another prior movement as well.

So if particle X spins 10,000 times in the time it takes from particle Y to move from one position to another, these we can observe that y/x equals a unit of time measurement.

10,000 lengths of one particle fits into the length of another particle, with the length of the particle strictly being the movement of one point to another considering no particle can exist without movement. This movement is alternation.

So we can observe the particle x is 10,000 lengths that fits into particles x 1 length...this is a basic observation of a length of space whether you want it or not.

Time is a ratio of linear distances.

The reason why particle x is more accurate than particle y is because.

1. There is very little variation in each one of the 10,000 spins, thus each length is fundamentally the same... thus closer to a singularity as the same thing repeating...again and again and again.

2. Each spin, as a circumference thus a length, is so small and so fast (high in number of reps relative to the rep of something else) that one length fundamentally fits into the fast number of lengths larger than it. A sub millimeter can fit into 100 feet more than 1 foot fitting into 100 feet...because it is so small it becomes more universal as an underlying medium.

Another example may be that while I may have a room full of various types of furniture, the one common element that unites all of them may be quarks (this is just an example as there is more in common than the quark)

3. Each spin is thus a length and time once again is strictly the distance between two points, with there being an infinite number of points to choose from as all objects at a distance become points...you could even observe the constellations rather than atoms.

4. Thus at the end of the day, time is strictly just a line...it is grounded in 1 line and we measure it by how we divided the line with further lines (considering all movements are dependent upon alternation there always is a length). This line, in and of itself, is fundamentally infinite until it is divided into further lines (lines segments according to mathematicians).

5. Considering all measurement is grounded in this one line, we are left with a paradox where the distance between two points effectively is instantaneous until we observe another set of lines divide them. All base measurements requiring an indivisible unity require instantantanous transfer.

6. Now this instantaneous transfer as a fraction of some other line becomes a simple dot. If I see the length of one spin (circumference rolled out) of a cesium particle and compare it to a millimeter it becomes a dot. Relatively speaking, this smallest unit of measurement, because of its distance (due to a size differential) will always be a dot. It only becomes a length when compare to some other particle that is smaller...in which case a single spin as a length also becomes a dot.

7. Instantaneous is thus grounded in a void in one respect because of this above point, but also because a simple dot appearing as another dot necessitates a bilocality where two phenomenon exist in two different positions at one time...one time being instantaneous.

8. Instantaneous transfer is grounded in a zero dimensionality, point space, or a length approaching 0 (very, very small). Considering instantaneous transfer occurs through void, void acts as a quantum medium and this emptiness is synonymous metaphorically and literally to the empty nature of a mind assuming phenomenon.

The mind as assuming is thus above time as its assumptive nature makes it intrinsically empty, thus leaving the subconscious as that which Inverts on image/experience/memory into another a timeless...considering one form changing to another form at its base level of one line changing to 2 or more lines is formless.

Intuitively, when one assumes reality for what it is, one is "lost in the moment" or a sense of timelessness occurs due to an absence of differentiation.

In these respects time is not only highly, highly relative but the subconscious nature of the mind is not subject to any length of time as any formation of these lengths is self reference (forming a measurement through the self then measuring the self through the measurement is strictly looping the self through a passive and active projection).

The subconsciousness, at its root nature of assuming reality...is empty, thus not subject to time but underlying it.

Yes your above is merely ranting.

We started with the Law of Non-Contradiction.

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).

I stated p and not-p can both be true within different time and different sense.

Example a piece of diamond can both be hard and soft but only if we take such from different time and different sense.
In this case, this is not contravening the Law of Contradiction.

I don't see how your ranting on 'time' has any relevant to the above.

I believe you are going off tangent again into another perspective of space-time.
In the above case, if I were to considered the diamond in the quantum sense [wave collapse function], it would be taken in another perspective which is not relevant to the above as intended in the OP.

Are you insisting, based on what you are ranting, there is an absolute real table as a counter to the OP?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:21 am You should read the full chapter linked and preferable the whole book.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:48 am Yeah, I just said the above was a rant...do you think you are clever and a special little snowflake or something?

Actually we didn't start with the law of non-contradiction, you started with it...why I dont know...that law is just made up...as a matter of fact it is a contradiction and not only a contradiction is just pulled out of thin air. It is putting a label on thin air.

You want to know why it is a contradiction?

Because (P=P)/=(-P=-P) and both P and -P require the law of identity if the law of non contradiction, as a law hence proposition, is to have an identity. The problem in the prior is that both P and -P are equal through the law of identity, thus the law of identity is split into opposing thetical and antithetical elements as it underlies both "cat is cat" and "non cat is non cat".

If you really want to meta-fuck it to oblivion, kind of like the internal oblivion one feels after a fuck, you are subject to (+=+)=(-=-) where "+" representing positive/existence and "-" representing negative/non existence are both equal to eachother through the law of identity, but "=" and "/=" are both subject to the same thetical and antithetical qualities.

This is a loop approaching point zero at this point as even the symbols themselves contradict based upon the same principles they both form and are formed by.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.
What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:48 am Yeah, I just said the above was a rant...do you think you are clever and a special little snowflake or something?

Actually we didn't start with the law of non-contradiction, you started with it...why I dont know...that law is just made up...as a matter of fact it is a contradiction and not only a contradiction is just pulled out of thin air. It is putting a label on thin air.

You want to know why it is a contradiction?

Because (P=P)/=(-P=-P) and both P and -P require the law of identity if the law of non contradiction, as a law hence proposition, is to have an identity. The problem in the prior is that both P and -P are equal through the law of identity, thus the law of identity is split into opposing thetical and antithetical elements as it underlies both "cat is cat" and "non cat is non cat".

If you really want to meta-fuck it to oblivion, kind of like the internal oblivion one feels after a fuck, you are subject to (+=+)=(-=-) where "+" representing positive/existence and "-" representing negative/non existence are both equal to eachother through the law of identity, but "=" and "/=" are both subject to the same thetical and antithetical qualities.

This is a loop approaching point zero at this point as even the symbols themselves contradict based upon the same principles they both form and are formed by.

Note, Newton's theories are said to be false when contrasted with Einstein, and Einstein's theories are false within Quantum Theories.
But is stupid to insist on the above, because they are VERY useful within their qualified sphere.

Thus we should state, Newton's theories could be true and false depending from what time and perspective one is looking at it.

Your problem is you are going off tangent most of the time, i.e. you insisting on talking 'oranges' while the topic is about specifically 'apples'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:21 am You should read the full chapter linked and preferable the whole book.

I understand Russell was a good mathematician. He should have stuck to that.

• They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
  B397

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:34 am I understand Russell was a good mathematician. He should have stuck to that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.
What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

The typical argument here goes: There may be many perspectives of reality, but there is only one reality. Either that which appears as a table is part of reality, or it isn't.

To assume a perspective in which the table is not real, is to re-define the contents of reality, not the table.

You are observing the table.
You are talking about the table.
What is it that you are attempting to communicate by asserting that it's "not real"?

The table that we are both observing and talking about is not real. Both of us agree. What happens next?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:50 am After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:02 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.
What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

The typical argument here goes: There may be many perspectives of reality, but there is only one reality. Either that which appears as a table is part of reality, or it isn't.

To assume a perspective in which the table is not real, is to re-define the contents of reality, not the table.

You are observing the table.
You are talking about the table.
What is it that you are attempting to communicate by asserting that it's "not real"?

The table that we are both observing and talking about is not real. Both of us agree. What happens next?

There is no universal table or absolute real table.
Whatever is real table or no real table is depending on the context and each context as qualified has its utility.

There is a real table within the context of common sense and scientific sense [JTB]. Within this context we have to accept there is a 'real physical table' [qualified] that we can use for various purposes.

But to insist there is an absolutely real table out there existing independent of human conditions, within the common and scientific sense, is false.
This the claim of the real thing-in-itself, i.e. table-in-itself or Plato's universal table.
While such a view has utility it also has its cons.

When such a table-in-itself is not limited as noumenon, then humans will be driven psychological [existential crisis, etc.] to run it off towards a God-in-itself, which has its psychological utility to the individual but also the terrible evil and violent acts committed in the name of God.

Since the cons of God is outweighing the pros of a belief in God [transcendental illusion], the effective solution is to tackle the critical root cause, i.e. the existential crisis from the psychological perspective.
This is not something new, the Eastern philosophies has been dealing with such an existential issue for thousands of years before Christ.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am...

After implying that Kant was definitely a metaphysical solipsist piece of shit, you are now doing the same with Russell? It's just your existential crysis at work again, you want to make the world disappear, pretend that it's not real (and hurt everyone who isn't like you, who isn't frightened to death by existence).

'Perspectives', the way you are using them, are cognitive illusions Kant warned us against. Maybe you should read that guy. The real table 'out there', which we have all the reasons to assume, is always there, it doesn't give a flying fuck whether you are making up perspective A at time X, or perspective B at time Y.