For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.
We use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinkingEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:33 pmSo their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.
The laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:36 pmWe use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinkingEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:33 pmSo their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.
An abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:38 pmThe laws are defined only through abstractions. I am not saying that only abstractions exist, but rather what we observe is, in many respects, the nature of abstraction gluing our perspective together.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:36 pmWe use the laws to make predictions about things that are actually observable, what does that have to do with meaninglessness? You really have the strangest way of thinkingEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:33 pm
So their are no physical laws which can be observe according to you. Entropy, is strictly meaningless, because we can only define it through abstraction, but the abstraction itself is meaningless, hence the definition is meaningless. If we cannot define a law then their is no law.
Without abstraction we cannot observe physical law.
How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:40 pmAn abstraction doesn't glue anything together, abstractions wield no such power.
You really can't make a distinction between your thoughts and physical objects?
None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions, dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction, expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:47 pmHow can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 pmNone of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:47 pm
How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?
dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?
I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?
So everything is made of thoughts?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:01 pmAtla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 pmNone of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:47 pm
How can you make a distinction when to do so would require an abstraction, such as define "this" as "that". If the physical object, through movement, eventually passes, and all that is left is a memory, but the memory is an abstraction, then how do you know physical reality exists for what it is?
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?
dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?
I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?
Of course the difference is that the image of the monitor in your head is constructed from sensory input about the actual monitor in front of you. So the actual monitor also exists independently of your thoughts.
Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:32 amOf course the difference is that the image of the monitor in your head is constructed from sensory input about the actual monitor in front of you. So the actual monitor also exists independently of your thoughts.
Was it that way when it was first invented or created? Was their a monitor there to look at?
Abstractions however are abstractions of other thoughts, so they don't directly refer to actual things out there. Mixing the two categories leads to nonsense. Even more nonsense happens when we start to believe in abstract realms, or that abstractions define reality.
So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?
Believing that all things are constructed from thoughts, is more like an epic Buddhist misunderstanding. Forms - also Buddhist stuff. I think it's better to unlearn 2400 year old psychologies first, the religion of the mind is very confused about the mind.
If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".
Self-reflecting points - also Buddhistic idea? Don't they have this view that the world is made of little crystals that reflect each other ad-infinitum. It's a fancy way of expressing interconnectedness, but reflection isn't literally happening. Technically humans are reflecting, there is a circularity in their head.
First tell me what matter is.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:05 pmSo everything is made of thoughts?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:01 pmAtla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 pm
None of this makes sense to me. You are mixing basic words for things, with abstractions,
Tell me, considering that "the word" is defined through physical laws, what laws are those exactly?
dividing things into physical and mental, bring memory into it which is definitely not abstraction,
Memory is not in the head, and everything in the head is an approximation?
expect absolute knowledge of physical reality which can't be expected of course..
They why use absolutes to define it?
I mean, can you tell the difference between a thought you are having, and the monitor in front of you?
Tell me what the difference is, if the knowledge we have of it is based upon memories of forms. Tell me what the difference is, if the monitor itself is synthesized from our thoughts?
What does this supposed to mean? A monitor is there now, in front of you.
What does this supposed to mean? Binary logic is very useful, why would it be nonsense?So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?
Yeah the same or similar nonsense was invented several times, but this is the 21st century now, time to move on.If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".
I said several times that the laws you talk about are also abstractions.Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.
Yes, your philosophy is a contradictory regress. We should avoid such traps with mental or abstract realms or whatever.Circularity either leads to a holistic progress or contradictory regress. Even the fallacies of logic contradict themselves.
Matter is a Western philosophy substance. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, reality is made of something, because God made the world out of clay.First tell me what matter is.
If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:31 pmWhat does this supposed to mean? A monitor is there now, in front of you.
What does this supposed to mean? Binary logic is very useful, why would it be nonsense?So the logical foundations the computers were formed with are nonsense?
Because it is an abstraction, according to you a "pseudo-dualism" considering their are more value inputs than strictly 1 and 0.
Yeah the same or similar nonsense was invented several times, but this is the 21st century now, time to move on.If we are going to "unlearn" the old ways then you might first have to understand them, considering this is not a strictly Buddhist concept, but ranges from Parmenides (one of the original philosphers who helped develop the scientific method), to aborigines cultural concept of dream time, to Zoroastrianism, to your standard catch phrase of "mind over matter".
And as a general philosophy, you seem to be a coward who hides in his head, in his ivory tower. Mind over matter pff.
Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?
I said several times that the laws you talk about are also abstractions.Your whole argument is circular. Laws exists. Abstractions are unreal. However we can only observe these laws if there are abstractions. However everything we observe is an approximation, hence what we consider as law is only approximation....etc.
Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?
It's your whole argument that's backwards and circular, you just don't see it yet.
I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.
Yes, your philosophy is a contradictory regress. We should avoid such traps with mental or abstract realms or whatever.Circularity either leads to a holistic progress or contradictory regress. Even the fallacies of logic contradict themselves.
But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?
Matter is a Western philosophy substance. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, reality is made of something, because God made the world out of clay.First tell me what matter is.
It is a hallucination, there are no substances, reality isn't really made of anything.
Why would there be more inputs than 1s and 0s? Do you know how computers work? Again you are mixing abstractions with physical implementations.
Is this a battlefield, are we fighting for our lives? No, we are on a philosophy forum, talking about how things are. And yes I don't like when someone doesn't dare to face reality, but still preaches.Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?
You don't even understand what "abstract" means, do you.Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?
Linearity and circularity work hand in hand when applied correctly, yes. But what you do is self-refuting, nonsensical circular reasoning.I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.
Again, you don't even seem to understand what the "abstract" is.But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?
You're taking every word out of context or I don't even know what's going on here. Reality is not made of anything as in any substance. Abstractness is abstractness. What the fuck does "reality based in the abstract" even mean. And no I don't see everything literally made of matter or thoughts.If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?
If it is all a hallucination, do you hallucinate?
Thank you for your "thoughts", I will take them in advisement.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:06 pmWhy would there be more inputs than 1s and 0s? Do you know how computers work? Again you are mixing abstractions with physical implementations.
How was the logic formed from which computer enabled themselves? As to the 1's and 0's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code
http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/art ... adic-logic
Is this a battlefield, are we fighting for our lives? No, we are on a philosophy forum, talking about how things are. And yes I don't like when someone doesn't dare to face reality, but still preaches.Haha, okay. So the athletes that practice the philosophy of mind over matter are cowards too? Or soldiers? If the philosophy helps them accomplish their objective, how is that cowardly?
Somehow I doubt, you have had any form of physical altercation or struggle...otherwise you would not only observe the necessity of "mind over matter", but quite frankly be thankful for the concept. I am guessing...early twenties, difficulty in college, couldn't get the girl, piss poor family (treated eachother poorly, not in the financial sense), and the general young male angry, because everything around him threatens his identity....is that a true guess?
The one thing I love, not like about philosophy, is that it has no real limits...I can address a concept...or the person directly. There are so many philosophical schools which justify each side.
But this is an internet forum dedicated, quite literally, to debating. If this is not real, then why are you here? Since when was a debate not a form of intellectual athleticism? How is this no different than intellectual exercise?
You don't even understand what "abstract" means, do you.Considering the laws I observe are "also abstractions" does that imply your laws are abstractions, hence you disagree with yourself?
According to you it does not really exist, so in effect by your own definition if you understand it you understand nothing.
Linearity and circularity work hand in hand when applied correctly, yes. But what you do is self-refuting, nonsensical circular reasoning.I argue, here and elsewhere, that linearity and circularity both work hand in hand and do not contradict eachother...under these premises I justify myself. You claim, specifically circular reasoning, is contradictory and only linear reasoning exists. Yet if you contradict this format, by default you condemn your own argument.
Observing your conclusions contradicting your premises...yes I am observing self-refuting nonsensical circular reasoning.
Again, you don't even seem to understand what the "abstract" is.But according to you a contradiction must also be an abstraction, hence how can you accuse me absurdity without you going against your own logical premise?
You're taking every word out of context or I don't even know what's going on here. Reality is not made of anything as in any substance. Abstractness is abstractness. What the fuck does "reality based in the abstract" even mean. And no I don't see everything literally made of matter or thoughts.If reality is not made of anything, and abstractness is nothing, how does that not justify reality is based in the abstract?
If it is all a hallucination, do you hallucinate?