Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 am Janism is older than Buddhism and the fundamental of the ANEKANTAVADA do recognize the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 amBuddhism is influenced by Jainism and it take the same stance re the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.
Both Jainism and Buddhism take the Middle-Way.

Only those with some psychiatric issues will take the non-dual-I as absolute and keep insisting the non-I is absolute.
This is reflected with the high emotional intensity those in the non-dual camps cling to their beliefs re the non-dual.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 am Janism is older than Buddhism and the fundamental of the ANEKANTAVADA do recognize the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.

You are the Absolute.

To speak of the absolute is relativism which is the absolute holding to a theory about itself which is absurd since Nonduality is not a theory, in fact there is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a THING...and no theory can be said about no thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 amBuddhism is influenced by Jainism and it take the same stance re the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.
Both Jainism and Buddhism take the Middle-Way.

Only those with some psychiatric issues will take the non-dual-I as absolute and keep insisting the non-I is absolute.
This is reflected with the high emotional intensity those in the non-dual camps cling to their beliefs re the non-dual.

No belief - no movie, story of I

I believe.

I do not believe I have to believe that I AM because I AM without doubt or error..but in order to KNOW I AM.. I have to believe.

It's really that simple, not complicated, although the simplest of ideas can be very complicated, and the complicated can be very simple.

So be it.

Makes no difference to the empty screen of consciousness that looks on in complete detachment upon all it's mental gymnastics.

From belief to clarity ...while the play of duality dances on.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:33 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 am Janism is older than Buddhism and the fundamental of the ANEKANTAVADA do recognize the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.

You are the Absolute.

To speak of the absolute is relativism which is the absolute holding to a theory about itself which is absurd since Nonduality is not a theory, in fact there is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a THING...and no theory can be said about no thing.

The moment you say there is no thing, you have to realize there is a thing.
As such when you say non-duality is not a Thing, then you must accept in another perspective, non-duality is a thing.
This is the fundamental principle of the ANEKANTAVADA.

You are one-track when you insist there is no thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:10 amBuddhism is influenced by Jainism and it take the same stance re the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.
Both Jainism and Buddhism take the Middle-Way.

Only those with some psychiatric issues will take the non-dual-I as absolute and keep insisting the non-I is absolute.
This is reflected with the high emotional intensity those in the non-dual camps cling to their beliefs re the non-dual.

No belief - no movie, story of I

I believe.

I do not believe I have to believe that I AM because I AM without doubt or error..but in order to KNOW I AM.. I have to believe.

It's really that simple, not complicated, although the simplest of ideas can be very complicated, and the complicated can be very simple.

So be it.

Makes no difference to the empty screen of consciousness that looks on in complete detachment upon all it's mental gymnastics.

From belief to clarity ...while the play of duality dances on.

The moment you say,

View 1. No belief - no movie, story of I, then your must say,
View 2. There is belief, there is movie, story of I +
View 3 -7 - not discussed here.


"I do not believe I have to believe that I AM because I AM without doubt or error..but in order to KNOW I AM.. I have to believe."
Whatever the above, you need to negate it.

E.g. wherever there is Yin there is Yang
If beyond Yin-Yang there is non-duality of the Tao
then you have to negate the Tao as well, i.e. there is no Tao.

No matter how deep you go and conclude whatever,
you have to continue to negate it.

In your above case, you are stuck with something even when it is is nothing like the non-dual.

The necessary wisdom is how to navigate between dual and non-dual in optimizing one's well being, thus the need of the Middle-Way.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:33 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:55 am

You are the Absolute.

To speak of the absolute is relativism which is the absolute holding to a theory about itself which is absurd since Nonduality is not a theory, in fact there is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a THING...and no theory can be said about no thing.

The moment you say there is no thing, you have to realize there is a thing.
As such when you say non-duality is not a Thing, then you must accept in another perspective, non-duality is a thing.
This is the fundamental principle of the ANEKANTAVADA.

You are one-track when you insist there is no thing.

No belief - no movie, story of I

I believe.

I do not believe I have to believe that I AM because I AM without doubt or error..but in order to KNOW I AM.. I have to believe.

It's really that simple, not complicated, although the simplest of ideas can be very complicated, and the complicated can be very simple.

So be it.

Makes no difference to the empty screen of consciousness that looks on in complete detachment upon all it's mental gymnastics.

From belief to clarity ...while the play of duality dances on.

The moment you say,

View 1. No belief - no movie, story of I, then your must say,
View 2. There is belief, there is movie, story of I +
View 3 -7 - not discussed here.


"I do not believe I have to believe that I AM because I AM without doubt or error..but in order to KNOW I AM.. I have to believe."
Whatever the above, you need to negate it.

E.g. wherever there is Yin there is Yang
If beyond Yin-Yang there is non-duality of the Tao
then you have to negate the Tao as well, i.e. there is no Tao.

No matter how deep you go and conclude whatever,
you have to continue to negate it.

In your above case, you are stuck with something even when it is is nothing like the non-dual.

The necessary wisdom is how to navigate between dual and non-dual in optimizing one's well being, thus the need of the Middle-Way.

Yeah I know all that, why do you have to keep repeating to me what I already know?

What are you trying to prove?

One can negate everything every thing but one cannot negate SOURCE.

What the heck is your problem?

What is it you want?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:02 am You know?? nah you don't.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:02 amI stated one should/must even negate whatever you deem is 'SOURCE'.
This is the fundamental principle of the ANEKANTAVADA.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:25 am
No issue with that.


One of the condition of empirical reality is movement which is obvious since the only constant is change.
The above obvious fact is not significant to the ANEKANTAVADA along the line of our discussion.


Imagination is merely one contribution to Science.
There is no Science without the contribution of reason.
What determine what is objective scientific theory is intersubjective consensus of the qualified peers.

Your is another case autism? i.e. unable to get on topic and forever going in your unjustified directions.

Science is an imagined methodology.

According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
But whatever you say of Science, i.e. imagined or conjectures, what it can assured is its scientific theories can be tested and confirmed to be consistent by anyone. Where there is inconsistencies, then by its principles the theory will be rejected or modified to whatever can be justified.

In the case of your so-called theory, you have not justified it for me to test.
You have not shown and demonstrated it is feasible to be tested for confirmation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:15 am
Science is an imagined methodology.

According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
But whatever you say of Science, i.e. imagined or conjectures, what it can assured is its scientific theories can be tested and confirmed to be consistent by anyone. Where there is inconsistencies, then by its principles the theory will be rejected or modified to whatever can be justified.

In the case of your so-called theory, you have not justified it for me to test.
You have not shown and demonstrated it is feasible to be tested for confirmation.

You fail to understand that the "theory" represented applies to the nature of proof as well and as such is not really limited by it.

1. All proof exists through the recursion of qualities/quanties within qualities/quantities as the experiment itself, a quality/quantity, is form. If the experiment is repeatable...it is proof, but this repeatability requires certain constant qualities/quanties to be underlying mediums that exist regardless.

So if a mouse will always eat rice within a box with rice in it, the mouse eating rice is the inherent center assumed quality that permeates the experiment as an ever present middle. This inherent middle is a continuum that gives form to the experiment, all experiments thus are continuums and as such rely on prelogical geometric forms of linearism and concentricity (circularity) through time.


2. All proof exists as intrinsically empty through the inversion (or isomorphism) of qualities/quantities to other qualities/quantities as the experiment itself, a quality/quantity, is intrinsically empty. All experiments require an inherent empty context. If an experiment is designed to measure the dynamic interplay between the mouse and rice, this context of the mouse and rice is an inherently empty context taken observed as it.

Putting the mouse and rice, and empty as assumed context, inside another context (ie the box), exists further as an expansion of one context into another context as an empty context in itself. The mouse, as intrinsically empty as an assumed context expands as a context with the introduction of the context of rice, with these contexts expanding further with the box. One inherent empty context Inverts into another, then another.

Thus the proof, as a set of contexts defined through eachother, is a context which is empty as it is fundamentally nothing in and of itself except a point of inversion to another context (the box on a table, another quality added such as "temperature", the observer's mood, etc.)

Thus we can have proof but observe proof as fundamentally empty assumptions as a point of inversion to another proof.

3. Each proof is both a recursive continuum and inherently void, thus exists as an empty contextual loop that as both form (recursion) and function (void) is variation. The proof thus can be called a "variable" as a constant medium of change much in the same manner of your standard algebraic variable "x" is a form of equivocation. The proof as a variable can equivocate to any quality and quantity of interpretations with this nature being grounded in its nature (this is not a pun but the observation of meta contexts) as an empty loop we call "context". All contexts are variables. The variable is both one and many.

I may see the "proof" of the "mouse's feeding habits of rice in a box" but this is strictly a variable, a form and function, that through the above laws equivocated to further proofs while always maintaining a perpetual recursive state of the empty context. I can observe this as this proof may be a variable that equivocated to other proofs of not just feeding patterns, or the application of a simple box as a framework, but the nature of mammals, "rice" or grain (as well as any other artificially presented food source), etc. As equivocable, it exists as both assumed and continuous through a form and function of looping.

4. The fourth point is that this is all fundamentally an image. All contexts, through recursion and inversion as variability, are images...they are imaginary and "assumed" as they are while these images, with the image of the context fundamentally being imaginary as a perfect circle (with "perfection" and "circle" being imaginary, ie "image") acting as a filter through how reality is assumed.

This assumptive nature of reality is subjective, but as grounding in the form and function of both recieiving and giving impressions, is not limited to the standard definition of "subjective" alone as basic matter (ie sand or clay...hell even space itself) both assumes and is assumed by matter.



The biggest paradox of all of this is not only are "intrinsic middle", "intrinsic void", "intrinsic variability" and "intrinsic imaging" what constitute proof, and act as proof in definition alone, but points to being above proof, thus leaving the question of "(proof=(true/false)value)?" as fundamentally what the eastern philosophies (specifically Japan in memory serves) calls "mu". Mu is when the question cannot even being correctly asked as it isn't even wrong...proof is just strictly assumed images..."imaginary".

Proof is not right...it isn't even wrong....

This is the part where I drop the mic, you stand there confused and frustrated figure out how you will respond beyond a standard "what a load of gibberish" because intuitively you know if you say that it is a...well..."giberrish" response...but you will be forced to say it anyhow while trying to come off as agreeable so somewhat save face.

Age will be in the corner talking to himself and walking around in circles...

• The Japanese and Korean term mu (Japanese: 無; Korean: 무) or Chinese wu (traditional Chinese: 無; simplified Chinese: 无), meaning "not have; without", is a key word in Buddhism, especially Zen traditions. -wiki

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:31 am
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
But whatever you say of Science, i.e. imagined or conjectures, what it can assured is its scientific theories can be tested and confirmed to be consistent by anyone. Where there is inconsistencies, then by its principles the theory will be rejected or modified to whatever can be justified.

In the case of your so-called theory, you have not justified it for me to test.
You have not shown and demonstrated it is feasible to be tested for confirmation.

You fail to understand that the "theory" represented applies to the nature of proof as well and as such is not really limited by it.

1. All proof exists through the recursion of qualities/quanties within qualities/quantities as the experiment itself, a quality/quantity, is form. If the experiment is repeatable...it is proof, but this repeatability requires certain constant qualities/quanties to be underlying mediums that exist regardless.

So if a mouse will always eat rice within a box with rice in it, the mouse eating rice is the inherent center assumed quality that permeates the experiment as an ever present middle. This inherent middle is a continuum that gives form to the experiment, all experiments thus are continuums and as such rely on prelogical geometric forms of linearism and concentricity (circularity) through time.


2. All proof exists as intrinsically empty through the inversion (or isomorphism) of qualities/quantities to other qualities/quantities as the experiment itself, a quality/quantity, is intrinsically empty. All experiments require an inherent empty context. If an experiment is designed to measure the dynamic interplay between the mouse and rice, this context of the mouse and rice is an inherently empty context taken observed as it.

Putting the mouse and rice, and empty as assumed context, inside another context (ie the box), exists further as an expansion of one context into another context as an empty context in itself. The mouse, as intrinsically empty as an assumed context expands as a context with the introduction of the context of rice, with these contexts expanding further with the box. One inherent empty context Inverts into another, then another.

Thus the proof, as a set of contexts defined through eachother, is a context which is empty as it is fundamentally nothing in and of itself except a point of inversion to another context (the box on a table, another quality added such as "temperature", the observer's mood, etc.)

Thus we can have proof but observe proof as fundamentally empty assumptions as a point of inversion to another proof.

3. Each proof is both a recursive continuum and inherently void, thus exists as an empty contextual loop that as both form (recursion) and function (void) is variation. The proof thus can be called a "variable" as a constant medium of change much in the same manner of your standard algebraic variable "x" is a form of equivocation. The proof as a variable can equivocate to any quality and quantity of interpretations with this nature being grounded in its nature (this is not a pun but the observation of meta contexts) as an empty loop we call "context". All contexts are variables. The variable is both one and many.

I may see the "proof" of the "mouse's feeding habits of rice in a box" but this is strictly a variable, a form and function, that through the above laws equivocated to further proofs while always maintaining a perpetual recursive state of the empty context. I can observe this as this proof may be a variable that equivocated to other proofs of not just feeding patterns, or the application of a simple box as a framework, but the nature of mammals, "rice" or grain (as well as any other artificially presented food source), etc. As equivocable, it exists as both assumed and continuous through a form and function of looping.

4. The fourth point is that this is all fundamentally an image. All contexts, through recursion and inversion as variability, are images...they are imaginary and "assumed" as they are while these images, with the image of the context fundamentally being imaginary as a perfect circle (with "perfection" and "circle" being imaginary, ie "image") acting as a filter through how reality is assumed.

This assumptive nature of reality is subjective, but as grounding in the form and function of both recieiving and giving impressions, is not limited to the standard definition of "subjective" alone as basic matter (ie sand or clay...hell even space itself) both assumes and is assumed by matter.



The biggest paradox of all of this is not only are "intrinsic middle", "intrinsic void", "intrinsic variability" and "intrinsic imaging" what constitute proof, and act as proof in definition alone, but points to being above proof, thus leaving the question of "(proof=(true/false)value)?" as fundamentally what the eastern philosophies (specifically Japan in memory serves) calls "mu". Mu is when the question cannot even being correctly asked as it isn't even wrong...proof is just strictly assumed images..."imaginary".

Proof is not right...it isn't even wrong....

This is the part where I drop the mic, you stand there confused and frustrated figure out how you will respond beyond a standard "what a load of gibberish" because intuitively you know if you say that it is a...well..."giberrish" response...but you will be forced to say it anyhow while trying to come off as agreeable so somewhat save face.

Age will be in the corner talking to himself and walking around in circles...

Where are you going with the above?

Reality exists.
Prove it....

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. -wiki.
A standard is always qualified to a framework of conditions, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Gibberish, a "standard qualified" necessitates the scientific framework as strictly projections of group agreement.

A proof is used to justify a proposition is true in accordance a defined framework.

Yes, circularity....another fallacy, the proposition is true because of the proof, but the proof does not exist without the proposition


E.g. scientific truths, legal truths, philosophical truths, etc. truth - they all do not stand independently but always subject to a specific framework and ultimately the subject[s] themselves.

Thus they are not objective, and by your own admission you are pushing your own thoughts, as they are subjective according to the above if taken scientifically (and they are not scientific) and it is all imaginary. Scientific truths are imagined in memory, we cannot see any scientific law as laws guide that which has a choice...then you are anthropomophizing reality

In the perspective of 'mu'

• The Japanese and Korean term mu (Japanese: 無; Korean: 무) or Chinese wu (traditional Chinese: 無; simplified Chinese: 无), meaning "not have; without", is a key word in Buddhism, especially Zen traditions. -wiki

there is no expectation of proof because nothing is claimed.

In your above you are claiming there is till something that exist regardless of all negatives. When that is the case, then you have to prove what is that 'thing' or 'nothing-that-is-a-thing'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:47 am Where are you going with the above?

Reality exists.
Prove it....

Note my point below, i.e. reality exists within various framework.
We can prove the Sun and everything known exist.
You dispute that?

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. -wiki.
A standard is always qualified to a framework of conditions, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Gibberish, a "standard qualified" necessitates the scientific framework as strictly projections of group agreement.

Yes, so what?
What counts is as long as scientific truths are qualified to its Scientific Framework, methods, assumptions, limitations, etc.
No scientist will claim scientific knowledge are independent unqualified truths.

A proof is used to justify a proposition is true in accordance a defined framework.

Yes, circularity....another fallacy, the proposition is true because of the proof, but the proof does not exist without the proposition

So what?
What is critical is whether the qualified truth is testable, justifiable by all and whether is useful or not.
Scientific truths are at best polished conjectures, but they are of utmost importance to mankind in terms of facilitating survival and progress, along with the cons.

E.g. scientific truths, legal truths, philosophical truths, etc. truth - they all do not stand independently but always subject to a specific framework and ultimately the subject[s] themselves.

Thus they are not objective, and by your own admission you are pushing your own thoughts, as they are subjective according to the above if taken scientifically (and they are not scientific) and it is all imaginary. Scientific truths are imagined in memory, we cannot see any scientific law as laws guide that which has a choice...then you are anthropomophizing reality

I have always define objective = intersubjective consensus.
There is no objective knowledge that is totally independent of the subject's conditions.

In the perspective of 'mu'

• The Japanese and Korean term mu (Japanese: 無; Korean: 무) or Chinese wu (traditional Chinese: 無; simplified Chinese: 无), meaning "not have; without", is a key word in Buddhism, especially Zen traditions. -wiki

there is no expectation of proof because nothing is claimed.

In your above you are claiming there is till something that exist regardless of all negatives. When that is the case, then you have to prove what is that 'thing' or 'nothing-that-is-a-thing'.

You wanted proof and I gave proof of what proof is:

Recursive contexts that are intrinsically empty that variate into further contexts with these contexts merely being images; hence "imaginary".

You demand proof but proof is a out of the question without relying on an inherent contradiction as to what proof is and is not.

You are asking, literally, for a contradiction.

Eodnhoj wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
scientific truths - legal truths - philosophical truths etc - truth - they all do not stand independently but always subject to a specific framework and ultimately the subjects themselves

Thus they are not objective and by your own admission you are pushing your own thoughts as they are subjective according to the above if taken scientifically ( and they are not scientific ) and it is all imaginary . Scientific truths are imagined in memory we cannot see any scientific law as laws guide that which has a choice ... then you are anthropormophizing reality

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:47 am Where are you going with the above?

Reality exists.
Prove it....

Note my point below, i.e. reality exists within various framework.
We can prove the Sun and everything known exist.
You dispute that?

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. -wiki.
A standard is always qualified to a framework of conditions, e.g. the Scientific Framework.
Gibberish, a "standard qualified" necessitates the scientific framework as strictly projections of group agreement.

Yes, so what?
What counts is as long as scientific truths are qualified to its Scientific Framework, methods, assumptions, limitations, etc.
No scientist will claim scientific knowledge are independent unqualified truths.

A proof is used to justify a proposition is true in accordance a defined framework.

Yes, circularity....another fallacy, the proposition is true because of the proof, but the proof does not exist without the proposition

So what?
What is critical is whether the qualified truth is testable, justifiable by all and whether is useful or not.
Scientific truths are at best polished conjectures, but they are of utmost importance to mankind in terms of facilitating survival and progress, along with the cons.

E.g. scientific truths, legal truths, philosophical truths, etc. truth - they all do not stand independently but always subject to a specific framework and ultimately the subject[s] themselves.

Thus they are not objective, and by your own admission you are pushing your own thoughts, as they are subjective according to the above if taken scientifically (and they are not scientific) and it is all imaginary. Scientific truths are imagined in memory, we cannot see any scientific law as laws guide that which has a choice...then you are anthropomophizing reality

I have always define objective = intersubjective consensus.
There is no objective knowledge that is totally independent of the subject's conditions.

In the perspective of 'mu'

• The Japanese and Korean term mu (Japanese: 無; Korean: 무) or Chinese wu (traditional Chinese: 無; simplified Chinese: 无), meaning "not have; without", is a key word in Buddhism, especially Zen traditions. -wiki

there is no expectation of proof because nothing is claimed.

In your above you are claiming there is till something that exist regardless of all negatives. When that is the case, then you have to prove what is that 'thing' or 'nothing-that-is-a-thing'.

You wanted proof and I gave proof of what proof is:

Recursive contexts that are intrinsically empty that variate into further contexts with these contexts merely being images; hence "imaginary".

You demand proof but proof is a out of the question without relying on an inherent contradiction as to what proof is and is not.

You are asking, literally, for a contradiction.

Point is as long as you are claiming something in the positive sense, the onus is on you to provide proofs.

Are you saying just because of some loops, scientists should not provide proofs for their claims?
Whatever the loop there is in your proof, just produce it subject to that 'loop' as qualified and limitation.
There is nothing wrong in stating assumptions and limitations in a proof as long as there is a consensus to them.

So, where is your proof subject to the above limitations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:58 am Red-hering as you are avoiding your key assumption: "proof"... you say provide proof and I am both asking a question (for you) while providing a stance:

1. What is this "proof"?
2. Proof is defintion as the connection of contexts through an inherent repeatability. Repeatability changes according to context.

For example you have something called a pressure point in martial arts. To strike a point and the person goes down instantly. In one context you can apply this pressure point (against people with little experience or are easier prone to suggestion) and it works. Change the context and it sometimes works (moderate experience and moderate suggestibilty). Change the context again and it never (or rather rarely) works (advanced experience and no suggestibility).

Each "proof" is true within the context, but as the context change so does the "truth value" as repeatability. Repeatability is subject to context, change the context and one "scientific" truth becomes false in another.

My next point is simple. Science requires logic to define it, but science exists through and requires loops. However loops are a fallacy, thus the logic used to describe science is not congruent to the form science takes...gets science requires not just logic for "description" (P=P) but exists as a defined methodology using group approved logical terms.

My final point is that consensus is probabilistic and has no real "sway". Again the fallacy of authority and bandwagon, and as usual a massive list of other, fallacies applies...but there is no consensus even on what consensus is. If consensus, as in majority democratic vote is applied, and we look "empirically" at both how democracies operate presently and in history...we are left with a pendulum effect.

Scientific truth is thus subject to a sway between truth and false values relative to vote and context applied. Before Newton was everything, Then Einstien's relativity came in and the community cherry picked truths. Now chameleon and symmetron theory are popping up and we see current alternations.

What is scientifically constant is "Rythym" and "Polarity" as the alternation between extremes both empirically and in the abstract continuation of the people involved.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:58 am Red-hering as you are avoiding your key assumption: "proof"... you say provide proof and I am both asking a question (for you) while providing a stance:

1. What is this "proof"?
2. Proof is defintion as the connection of contexts through an inherent repeatability. Repeatability changes according to context.

For example you have something called a pressure point in martial arts. To strike a point and the person goes down instantly. In one context you can apply this pressure point (against people with little experience or are easier prone to suggestion) and it works. Change the context and it sometimes works (moderate experience and moderate suggestibilty). Change the context again and it never (or rather rarely) works (advanced experience and no suggestibility).

Each "proof" is true within the context, but as the context change so does the "truth value" as repeatability. Repeatability is subject to context, change the context and one "scientific" truth becomes false in another.

My next point is simple. Science requires logic to define it, but science exists through and requires loops. However loops are a fallacy, thus the logic used to describe science is not congruent to the form science takes...gets science requires not just logic for "description" (P=P) but exists as a defined methodology using group approved logical terms.

My final point is that consensus is probabilistic and has no real "sway". Again the fallacy of authority and bandwagon, and as usual a massive list of other, fallacies applies...but there is no consensus even on what consensus is. If consensus, as in majority democratic vote is applied, and we look "empirically" at both how democracies operate presently and in history...we are left with a pendulum effect.

Scientific truth is thus subject to a sway between truth and false values relative to vote and context applied. Before Newton was everything, Then Einstien's relativity came in and the community cherry picked truths. Now chameleon and symmetron theory are popping up and we see current alternations.

What is scientifically constant is "Rythym" and "Polarity" as the alternation between extremes both empirically and in the abstract continuation of the people involved.

I stated objective truths [scientific, legal, etc.] are basically subjective, i.e. intersubjective and rely on consensus but based on justifications of rationality and philosophically.

So you are pushing relativistic subjectivism then and have no foundations but a personal point of view that assumes?

E.g. the scientific truth as qualified, "water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen molecules."
This truth can be tested by anyone with the qualifications and the results will be the same all the time.
Water is also made of the color blue when certain elements are present, green with others, clear with others. It is also composed of alternating wave movements. It is also receptive and assumes all forms. It is also made by electromagnetic pulling and pushing. It is made of...blah, blah, blah.

It is "made of" is strictly observing a context of interpretation.

Even the standard water is made of the bonding of oxygen and hydrogen requires a looping of not just these molecules in space as time (and the loops of further particles that compose them) but also the definition of what water is: w=h20 and h20=w.

All of which are logical fallacies...so you cannot justify any of this under standard logic without contradicting yourself.

If someone can show a different result with the qualified conditions and this new theory is consistent with repeated testing, then the original truth will be rejected and the new one will be accepted.
Science never claim scientific truths are independent and permanent.

Actually you can change the results if you change the condition. The current "conditions" are particle alignment...but particle is strictly any "part" or "fraction" of a larger whole. Even the particles are subject to regress...so water is h20, but what is it in electrons and protons, or quarks, or leptons or the next undiscovered particle?

You can argue water is composed of clearness under the condition of color, where clarity is just an another part of a color spectrum,

you can argue water is composed of "x" electromagnetic frequency when observing frequencies as parts of a larger spectrum.

You can argue that water is compose of x sound frequency under y current.

You can argue water is a substance that is a solid, liquid, gas under x,y,z temperature.

You can just keep expanding contexts and contexts, or just define it by any one.

You can argue water is strictly x reaction to y phenomenon.

You can argue anything...it is all context and subject to a point of observation.

All your critiques of scientific truths above has no relevance at all.

Relevant to who? You say it is all subjective and last time I check the scientific community not only has no ethics system to keep them in check, but no proof for ethics.

What you push is just sophistry.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:58 am Red-hering as you are avoiding your key assumption: "proof"... you say provide proof and I am both asking a question (for you) while providing a stance:

1. What is this "proof"?
2. Proof is defintion as the connection of contexts through an inherent repeatability. Repeatability changes according to context.

For example you have something called a pressure point in martial arts. To strike a point and the person goes down instantly. In one context you can apply this pressure point (against people with little experience or are easier prone to suggestion) and it works. Change the context and it sometimes works (moderate experience and moderate suggestibilty). Change the context again and it never (or rather rarely) works (advanced experience and no suggestibility).

Each "proof" is true within the context, but as the context change so does the "truth value" as repeatability. Repeatability is subject to context, change the context and one "scientific" truth becomes false in another.

My next point is simple. Science requires logic to define it, but science exists through and requires loops. However loops are a fallacy, thus the logic used to describe science is not congruent to the form science takes...gets science requires not just logic for "description" (P=P) but exists as a defined methodology using group approved logical terms.

My final point is that consensus is probabilistic and has no real "sway". Again the fallacy of authority and bandwagon, and as usual a massive list of other, fallacies applies...but there is no consensus even on what consensus is. If consensus, as in majority democratic vote is applied, and we look "empirically" at both how democracies operate presently and in history...we are left with a pendulum effect.

Scientific truth is thus subject to a sway between truth and false values relative to vote and context applied. Before Newton was everything, Then Einstien's relativity came in and the community cherry picked truths. Now chameleon and symmetron theory are popping up and we see current alternations.

What is scientifically constant is "Rythym" and "Polarity" as the alternation between extremes both empirically and in the abstract continuation of the people involved.

I stated objective truths [scientific, legal, etc.] are basically subjective, i.e. intersubjective and rely on consensus but based on justifications of rationality and philosophically.

So you are pushing relativistic subjectivism then and have no foundations but a personal point of view that assumes?

E.g. the scientific truth as qualified, "water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen molecules."
This truth can be tested by anyone with the qualifications and the results will be the same all the time.
Water is also made of the color blue when certain elements are present, green with others, clear with others. It is also composed of alternating wave movements. It is also receptive and assumes all forms. It is also made by electromagnetic pulling and pushing. It is made of...blah, blah, blah.

It is "made of" is strictly observing a context of interpretation.

Even the standard water is made of the bonding of oxygen and hydrogen requires a looping of not just these molecules in space as time (and the loops of further particles that compose them) but also the definition of what water is: w=h20 and h20=w.

All of which are logical fallacies...so you cannot justify any of this under standard logic without contradicting yourself.

If someone can show a different result with the qualified conditions and this new theory is consistent with repeated testing, then the original truth will be rejected and the new one will be accepted.
Science never claim scientific truths are independent and permanent.

Actually you can change the results if you change the condition. The current "conditions" are particle alignment...but particle is strictly any "part" or "fraction" of a larger whole. Even the particles are subject to regress...so water is h20, but what is it in electrons and protons, or quarks, or leptons or the next undiscovered particle?

You can argue water is composed of clearness under the condition of color, where clarity is just an another part of a color spectrum,

you can argue water is composed of "x" electromagnetic frequency when observing frequencies as parts of a larger spectrum.

You can argue that water is compose of x sound frequency under y current.

You can argue water is a substance that is a solid, liquid, gas under x,y,z temperature.

You can just keep expanding contexts and contexts, or just define it by any one.

You can argue water is strictly x reaction to y phenomenon.

You can argue anything...it is all context and subject to a point of observation.

All your critiques of scientific truths above has no relevance at all.

Relevant to who? You say it is all subjective and last time I check the scientific community not only has no ethics system to keep them in check, but no proof for ethics.

What you push is just sophistry.