Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 12:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:15 am
If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.


If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.


Yes, I agree to the above.


Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

Pass.


Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

1. An FSK as an authority requires an FSK beyond that FSK which is not justified but simply believed.

2. "No-thing" is an absence of proof, absence of proof exists. The relativity of truth necessitates all truths as unproven relative to a different context, thus absence of proof is continuous (ie absolute).

3. "Thing in itself", as absolute, equates to "no-thing", as absolute, thus what is absolute about reality is an absence of thingness.

4. All FSKs must depend upon further FSKs if FSK is to be justified ("utility", as in a thing for a specific use, is an FSK). The paradox of this FSK relying upon another FSK is that the FSK becomes obscure.

5. "Whatever is derived from an FSK is conditional" is absolute as there is nothing to compare an FSK to as FSK is "conditions"; conditions relative to conditions makes condition self-referential and without contrast thus unconditional.

Whatever the FSK or beyond a FSK, they ultimately fall back to humans beyond it.
Therefore a FSK or whatever FSK one can go far back, it is always conditional to humans.

The only thing you can claim is there is an absolute to humans, i.e. an independent absolutely absolute God who created humans, i.e. the first cause. But note my argument,

God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 6:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 12:25 am

1. An FSK as an authority requires an FSK beyond that FSK which is not justified but simply believed.

2. "No-thing" is an absence of proof, absence of proof exists. The relativity of truth necessitates all truths as unproven relative to a different context, thus absence of proof is continuous (ie absolute).

3. "Thing in itself", as absolute, equates to "no-thing", as absolute, thus what is absolute about reality is an absence of thingness.

4. All FSKs must depend upon further FSKs if FSK is to be justified ("utility", as in a thing for a specific use, is an FSK). The paradox of this FSK relying upon another FSK is that the FSK becomes obscure.

5. "Whatever is derived from an FSK is conditional" is absolute as there is nothing to compare an FSK to as FSK is "conditions"; conditions relative to conditions makes condition self-referential and without contrast thus unconditional.

Whatever the FSK or beyond a FSK, they ultimately fall back to humans beyond it.
Therefore a FSK or whatever FSK one can go far back, it is always conditional to humans.

The only thing you can claim is there is an absolute to humans, i.e. an independent absolutely absolute God who created humans, i.e. the first cause. But note my argument,

God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Humans are an FSK as they are the embodiment of knowledge; thus FSKs produce FSKs and FSK becomes self-referential and without comparison.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm 1. There is a totality of being.

2. This totality is "one" as it is everything.

3. "Everything" however necessitates a multiplicity as it infers "all things".

4. One is a summation of multiples.

....

14. "No-thing" is absolute.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:14 pm Item 3 is dodgy. It is correct semantically but is not a proof that 'things' truly exists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 4:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 6:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:54 am
Whatever the FSK or beyond a FSK, they ultimately fall back to humans beyond it.
Therefore a FSK or whatever FSK one can go far back, it is always conditional to humans.

The only thing you can claim is there is an absolute to humans, i.e. an independent absolutely absolute God who created humans, i.e. the first cause. But note my argument,

God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Humans are an FSK as they are the embodiment of knowledge; thus FSKs produce FSKs and FSK becomes self-referential and without comparison.

Yes FSKs produce FSKs.
It is like parents [as FSKs] produce children [FSKs] but this is not a case of self-referencing.
Children are conditioned upon their parents and the environment.
Thus my point, there is no absolutely-absolute-ness*, in this case, no absolute truths.
* to contrast relative absolute-ness. e.g. absolute temperature.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm 1. There is a totality of being.

2. This totality is "one" as it is everything.

3. "Everything" however necessitates a multiplicity as it infers "all things".

4. One is a summation of multiples.

....

14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Item 3 is dodgy. It is correct semantically but is not a proof that 'things' truly exists. The 'One ' of Plotinus and more generally mysticism is not a thing or a collection of things. 'Things' says Master Eckhart are 'literally nothing'. As 'things' are not truly real the One is not a synthesis.

Thus item 4 is also dodgy. It endorses monism, which doesn't work in metaphysics. What works is the idea of unity, which is not a numerical one.

Item 4 is accurate, therefore, as long as you take it to mean that what is absolute and original is not a thing, as is the case for the Perennial philosophy.

I like your approach to listing the steps of your argument, but am not sure it sheds any light on the issues. You might like G. S. Brown's Laws of Form, where he explains how things arise from thinglessness, or form from formlessness. His approach reduces 'things' to a unity of being, in line with Plotinus et al. Thus for Middle Way Buddhism nothing really exists or ever really happens, and multiplicity is a conceptual phenomenon.

Just noodling some notes - the topic deserves a more careful exposition.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 11:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 4:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 6:52 pm

Humans are an FSK as they are the embodiment of knowledge; thus FSKs produce FSKs and FSK becomes self-referential and without comparison.

Yes FSKs produce FSKs.
It is like parents [as FSKs] produce children [FSKs] but this is not a case of self-referencing.
Children are conditioned upon their parents and the environment.
Thus my point, there is no absolutely-absolute-ness*, in this case, no absolute truths.
* to contrast relative absolute-ness. e.g. absolute temperature.

The FSK referencing the FSK results in the FSK referencing nothing other than the phenomenon it is therefore the FSK is absolute.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 11:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 4:47 am
Yes FSKs produce FSKs.
It is like parents [as FSKs] produce children [FSKs] but this is not a case of self-referencing.
Children are conditioned upon their parents and the environment.
Thus my point, there is no absolutely-absolute-ness*, in this case, no absolute truths.
* to contrast relative absolute-ness. e.g. absolute temperature.

The FSK referencing the FSK results in the FSK referencing nothing other than the phenomenon it is therefore the FSK is absolute.

If the FSK is referencing the phenomenon, then in a state of referencing the FSK cannot be absolute.
In addition, the principle is the FSK is always constructed as sustained by humans, so in principle cannot be absolute.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 11:26 pm

The FSK referencing the FSK results in the FSK referencing nothing other than the phenomenon it is therefore the FSK is absolute.

If the FSK is referencing the phenomenon, then in a state of referencing the FSK cannot be absolute.
In addition, the principle is the FSK is always constructed as sustained by humans, so in principle cannot be absolute.

So if everything is relative then your statements, ie FSKs, are false in light of a different context.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:02 am
If the FSK is referencing the phenomenon, then in a state of referencing the FSK cannot be absolute.
In addition, the principle is the FSK is always constructed as sustained by humans, so in principle cannot be absolute.

So if everything is relative then your statements, ie FSKs, are false in light of a different context.

What different context?

Everything is relative and FSKs are real within the context of empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings.

Note I have always claim mine is a top-down approach, i.e. I start with emergences supported by empirical evidences and rationalize reality as far as the empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings can hold.

OTOH, yours is a bottom-up approach.
You start by assuming 'that' exists as real but without providing any empirical justifications, then you merely try to rationalize it philosophically without empirically evidence [if any, then flimsy ones].

That is what theists are doing, i.e.
the jumped hastily to the conclusion "God exists as real" without starting from empirical evidence but merely using all sort of empirical to justify it after-the-claim.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:59 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:53 pm

So if everything is relative then your statements, ie FSKs, are false in light of a different context.

What different context?

Everything is relative and FSKs are real within the context of empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings.

Note I have always claim mine is a top-down approach, i.e. I start with emergences supported by empirical evidences and rationalize reality as far as the empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings can hold.

OTOH, yours is a bottom-up approach.
You start by assuming 'that' exists as real but without providing any empirical justifications, then you merely try to rationalize it philosophically without empirically evidence [if any, then flimsy ones].

That is what theists are doing, i.e.
the jumped hastily to the conclusion "God exists as real" without starting from empirical evidence but merely using all sort of empirical to justify it after-the-claim.

1. The context of science is false in light of the perception of someone mentally handicapped or a person who argues against science; not all FSKs are universally observed and observation, according to you (if I understand correctly), is necessary.

2. The empirical is interpretted through the abstract as all empirical phenomenon are reduced to memory and the memory is subject to imagination.

3. God is the totality of the empirical and this totality is without contrast as there is nothing to compare it to. This absence of comparison makes it absolute. To say, from a different perspective, that "the whole is relative to the parts" is to equate the whole to the parts thus both become one and the same as both become synonyms for the other: whole=parts.

4. Existence is the universal quality of all that exists and as such has no comparison as only existence exists; existence is God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 4:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:59 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:24 am
What different context?

Everything is relative and FSKs are real within the context of empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings.

Note I have always claim mine is a top-down approach, i.e. I start with emergences supported by empirical evidences and rationalize reality as far as the empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings can hold.

OTOH, yours is a bottom-up approach.
You start by assuming 'that' exists as real but without providing any empirical justifications, then you merely try to rationalize it philosophically without empirically evidence [if any, then flimsy ones].

That is what theists are doing, i.e.
the jumped hastily to the conclusion "God exists as real" without starting from empirical evidence but merely using all sort of empirical to justify it after-the-claim.

1. The context of science is false in light of the perception of someone mentally handicapped or a person who argues against science; not all FSKs are universally observed and observation, according to you (if I understand correctly), is necessary.

There are degrees to truth with scientific facts but the most reliable truths of science are the most credible of all truths. This is based on the credibility of the scientific FSK [also mathematical] with the assurances of verification, justifications, testability and repeatability.
Science claims Water is H2O.
Any normal* person who argues against science can test and get the same answers all time, thus reliability and its is credible.
It is crazy to bring in someone mentally handicapped to argue against science.

2. The empirical is interpretted through the abstract as all empirical phenomenon are reduced to memory and the memory is subject to imagination.

This is false. Memory merely contributed a small part in the emergence of empirical scientific truths.
What is critical is all scientific truths must comply with the requirements of the scientific methods and scientific FSK.

3. God is the totality of the empirical and this totality is without contrast as there is nothing to compare it to. This absence of comparison makes it absolute. To say, from a different perspective, that "the whole is relative to the parts" is to equate the whole to the parts thus both become one and the same as both become synonyms for the other: whole=parts.

You are too hasty here.
You bring in the idea of 'God' as if it already exists, but then you have not provided any justifications that it exists as real.
Thus whatever you concur do not follow as real.

4. Existence is the universal quality of all that exists and as such has no comparison as only existence exists; existence is God.

"Existence" i.e. "is" is not a predicate but merely a copula.
In principle the formula is,
[subject] is [predicate].
Whatever the predicate it must be justified to be real via its specific FSK bearing in mind the most credible, say 90/100 is the scientific FSK.

If you insist 'God is real' via the theistic FSK, then you need to provide the empirical verification and justification that God is real, plus it should be testable and repeatable by anyone arguing against it.
The point is the theistic FSK by default cannot provide empirical justifications that are testable and repeatable, thus the credibility of the theistic FSK is only 0.0001/100 relative to the scientific FSK, i.e. it is impossible to be real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 4:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:59 pm

1. The context of science is false in light of the perception of someone mentally handicapped or a person who argues against science; not all FSKs are universally observed and observation, according to you (if I understand correctly), is necessary.

There are degrees to truth with scientific facts but the most reliable truths of science are the most credible of all truths. This is based on the credibility of the scientific FSK [also mathematical] with the assurances of verification, justifications, testability and repeatability.
Science claims Water is H2O.
Any normal* person who argues against science can test and get the same answers all time, thus reliability and its is credible.
It is crazy to bring in someone mentally handicapped to argue against science.

2. The empirical is interpretted through the abstract as all empirical phenomenon are reduced to memory and the memory is subject to imagination.

This is false. Memory merely contributed a small part in the emergence of empirical scientific truths.
What is critical is all scientific truths must comply with the requirements of the scientific methods and scientific FSK.

3. God is the totality of the empirical and this totality is without contrast as there is nothing to compare it to. This absence of comparison makes it absolute. To say, from a different perspective, that "the whole is relative to the parts" is to equate the whole to the parts thus both become one and the same as both become synonyms for the other: whole=parts.

You are too hasty here.
You bring in the idea of 'God' as if it already exists, but then you have not provided any justifications that it exists as real.
Thus whatever you concur do not follow as real.

4. Existence is the universal quality of all that exists and as such has no comparison as only existence exists; existence is God.

"Existence" i.e. "is" is not a predicate but merely a copula.
In principle the formula is,
[subject] is [predicate].
Whatever the predicate it must be justified to be real via its specific FSK bearing in mind the most credible, say 90/100 is the scientific FSK.

If you insist 'God is real' via the theistic FSK, then you need to provide the empirical verification and justification that God is real, plus it should be testable and repeatable by anyone arguing against it.
The point is the theistic FSK by default cannot provide empirical justifications that are testable and repeatable, thus the credibility of the theistic FSK is only 0.0001/100 relative to the scientific FSK, i.e. it is impossible to be real.

1. Yet reality as conditioned upon human awareness is equally conditioned upon the mentally ill as well as the mentally stable. We know this because the actions of the mentally ill affect reality just as much as the actions of the mentally stable.

2. Memory does not contribute a small part to scientific truth as it is what enables scientific truth to continually exist at all.

3. One definition of God is "All in all" thus God is defined as "everything". "Everything" exists thus God exists.

4. The fact that existence continues is evidence that God exists as this continuity of existence is the repetition of existence.

5. To subject God to testing would be equivalent to creating a test to prove whether or not existence is...how do you test existence without first using existence through the test? If God is defined as everything then any test for God would be using God to prove God.

6. In simply discussing God we are empirically verifying God already.

7. Existence as a whole is unprovable yet accepted as self-evident.

8. Repeatability is not necessary for truth, all an atom has to do is appear one time in x position in order to exist, the repeatability of the atom in x position is not necessary.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 4:17 am
There are degrees to truth with scientific facts but the most reliable truths of science are the most credible of all truths. This is based on the credibility of the scientific FSK [also mathematical] with the assurances of verification, justifications, testability and repeatability.
Science claims Water is H2O.
Any normal* person who argues against science can test and get the same answers all time, thus reliability and its is credible.
It is crazy to bring in someone mentally handicapped to argue against science.


This is false. Memory merely contributed a small part in the emergence of empirical scientific truths.
What is critical is all scientific truths must comply with the requirements of the scientific methods and scientific FSK.


You are too hasty here.
You bring in the idea of 'God' as if it already exists, but then you have not provided any justifications that it exists as real.
Thus whatever you concur do not follow as real.


"Existence" i.e. "is" is not a predicate but merely a copula.
In principle the formula is,
[subject] is [predicate].
Whatever the predicate it must be justified to be real via its specific FSK bearing in mind the most credible, say 90/100 is the scientific FSK.

If you insist 'God is real' via the theistic FSK, then you need to provide the empirical verification and justification that God is real, plus it should be testable and repeatable by anyone arguing against it.
The point is the theistic FSK by default cannot provide empirical justifications that are testable and repeatable, thus the credibility of the theistic FSK is only 0.0001/100 relative to the scientific FSK, i.e. it is impossible to be real.

1. Yet reality as conditioned upon human awareness is equally conditioned upon the mentally ill as well as the mentally stable. We know this because the actions of the mentally ill affect reality just as much as the actions of the mentally stable.

Yes, whatever is reality is conditioned upon humans in general thus the mentally stable and mentally ill.
But there is a question of 'credibility' of facts and truths.
The most credible facts at present those of the scientific FSK or mathematical FSK.
As such, whether it is the mentally stable or unstable is not the issue, what counts is the credibility of the human-based FSK relied upon.

2. Memory does not contribute a small part to scientific truth as it is what enables scientific truth to continually exist at all.

What is critical is the credibility of the scientific FSK. Memory plays does contribute a very insignificant part in the processes of the FSK.

3. One definition of God is "All in all" thus God is defined as "everything". "Everything" exists thus God exists.

Definitions cannot assured of reality and existence-as-real at all.

4. The fact that existence continues is evidence that God exists as this continuity of existence is the repetition of existence.

Existence is never a predicate.
Existence or "is" is merely a copula as I had explained.
You did not counter my point.
Whatever you express above is incoherent.

5. To subject God to testing would be equivalent to creating a test to prove whether or not existence is...how do you test existence without first using existence through the test? If God is defined as everything then any test for God would be using God to prove God.

absolutely 100% certainty
Note as I had stated 'definitions' cannot guarantee existence as real.
If your God cannot be justified empirically, tested and confirmed repeatedly within a credible FSK, then your claim 'God exists' cannot be credible at all.

6. In simply discussing God we are empirically verifying God already.

What?? don't insult your intelligence with such a claim.

7. Existence as a whole is unprovable yet accepted as self-evident.

Self-evident without an empirical basis and justified within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK is never credible. Note my,
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I repeat again 'existence' is never a predicate, it is merely a copula.

8. Repeatability is not necessary for truth, all an atom has to do is appear one time in x position in order to exist, the repeatability of the atom in x position is not necessary.

What??
See point 5. above re the need for repeatability for truth to be most credible.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:45 pm 1. The credibility of the FSK is dependent upon the sane/ill and the sane/ill are defined by an FSK that determines there sanity and illness. It is circular.

2. Credibility is dependent upon reliability, reliability is dependent upon repetition, repetition is memory.

3. Definitions are inseparable from FSKs as the FSK is the definition of how to interpret reality with this interpretation being a further definition resulting from the FSK. Reality is definition.

4. Existence is a predicate as "Existence results in existence" equivocates to "Existence is". The repetition of forms necessitates the existence of God as an underlying order permeates all of being. God exists as relative.

5. "justified empirically, tested and confirmed repeatedly within a credible FSK" is a definition.

6. In discussing God we are pointing to existence as only existence exists. Considering only existence exists then God is reducible to all that there is.

7. But you can never justify "credibility" empirically or scientifically as it is an abstraction, yet "credibility" is necessary for empirical/scientific claims. As such your stance is formulated on preconcieved definitions that are relative to your perspective and that of other groups. "Credibility" is group agreement.

8. Repeatability is subject to conditions, when the conditions expand or contract the repeatability of a phenomenon changes and as such repeatability is not the most reliable notion for truth. Rather it, the phenomenon, existing just once in x,y,z condition is justifiable for truth; truth occurs through singularness.

Kant in CPR wrote: 1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.

3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.

5. 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