Philosophy Now Forum

Tesla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:42 am I would love to have a debate primarily with you on this topic.
Up to you, any set rules you wish after I respond to the below?

Granted, there are many definitions, as, people use this word loosely. But, seeing as you have a unique perspective, I wish to make a proposal, and then see where the definition leads.I am familiar with many of Plato's works, and I understand what happens through budhist meditation, in which the mind can be separated from the body with enough absence of outside stimulation. (a monk could, once far enough along in detachment burn themselves without making a sound, as their mind is so total in disconnect from the physical realm)
It does work.

I propose this definition for Existence as a noun:

Existence: The energy that always was, that no thing can exist outside of and still exist.

And what is energy?


[/color]

And what is energy?

Tesla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:03 am no rules.

And what is energy?

Good luck then...

Currently it is being used generically. at the core; motion is considered energy. while mass is energy conserved. Both are motion however, which is why E=MC^2.

A more accurate description of the mass relationship can be explained with Q=MCp(Delta)t, where Q is energy, M is the mass (in moles) C is the specific heat of the atom(s)(p denotes constant pressure) and delta t is just change in temperature.

E=MC^2 is fine for this argument, since we are using the description of energy as a generic (motion). in atoms, motion exists in a subatomic form as well as in its conservative moving form, but also light, which is considered without mass, but also, fields, such as the strong force, magnetism, gravity and heat.

I equate energy to 'existence' because of all the tools of our science and its endeavor to find and or create a spot without energy present has proven impossible. A cubic meter of the energy in empty space can boil the earths oceans. and although we haven't made it out to inter-galaxy 'space' all our instruments record some form of energy no matter where we look. So to exist, energy must be present. outside of that: it would not exist.


1. If you grounded energy as a generality then we are left with equivocation as nullifying the term making the argument a revolving circle around...nothing.

2. If you narrow it down to motion then you have to define motion. Mass as conserved energy is potential unactualized motion....but you are using a basic active/potential aristotelian dualism with just a plane empty assumption of what motion is...this is fine and all but you are left with a tautology of "motion" that is only valid if it continually progresses leaving the definiton of "energy" as changing constantly.

Any requirement of definition thus becomes a dynamic endeavor and we are left with basic forms of arguments rather than arguments itself.


3.. Its a contradictory argument as if all things are composed of energy then the tools themselves are made of energy and you are creating not just energy by the definition of energy as well.

You can't not detect energy if the tools are made of energy, as the devices determine the results of the experiment.

Its circular reasoning:

Hypothesis: All is energy.
Experiment: Use X device, but X device must be "energy" according to the hypothesis...so you are left with an experimental model which determines the hypothesis as right regardless of what you do.

You are pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, and you model is contradictory under the standard fallacies.

4. "Energy is mass times the speed of light squared."

Energy is thus the multiplication of mass by its projection through acceleration (speed).

Mass takes form through projection, under acceleration, which results in volume.



This is no different than saying a 0d point (formless like mass) when projected becomes a 1d line.
The definition is a tautology of the basic geometry from which physics is defined, except instead of saying 0d point, mass is used, in stead of 1d line speed (which is volume through accleration) is used.

Under these terms we are left with physics being a tautology of geometry with this geometry being the assumption of space through linear and circular reasoning which is spatial...thus a further tautology where being itself is premised in space.

Tesla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:42 amFor EoD, Define: Existence

"I am (in a state of) existence..."

I suppose I exist...
I think I exist...
I think (therefor!) I exist...
I believe I exist...
I assume I exist...

I know I exist.

existence
i. state: as in acknowledgement(s) to/of self
ii. acknowledgement(s) in/as/of a 'state' of existence
(ie. as of inhabiting in habitable existential phenomena) within which "to exist".

HexHammer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:06 am

Tesla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:42 amFor EoD, Define: Existence

Irrelevant topic, should be self explanatory! But if one was to define it, it would be too long.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:58 am For contrast.

It begs inquiry as to the practicality(?): first begin with what is practically(!) obvious:

"I am (in a state of) existence..."

and note the peculiar ones try to reason otherwise:

I suppose I exist...
I think I exist...
I think (therefor!) I exist...
I believe I exist...
I assume I exist...

none of this is grounded with/in any real certainty. Abhorrently meticulous (a characteristic of the peculiar ones) handling(s) of such words as 'real' should duly beg as just and thorough a militant inquisition (not 'really') as to ones own practical reality viz. it should start with trying to be realistic with ones own self. If there is such a 'state' that might ever be tried for realism, it must first be with ones own existence over any/all else. To be abhorrently meticulous less the same for ones own 'realty' is 'real' absurd(ity): to "just get real" as it were, should suffice for any as it might for all.

I know I exist.

Which can not be acknowledged less one exist,
and which can not be acknowledged less existence
be, to let one be,
to ever ask for
a definition
of existence
in-and-of-itself.

deriving simply:

existence
i. state: as in acknowledgement(s) to/of self
ii. acknowledgement(s) in/as/of a 'state' of existence
(ie. as of inhabiting in habitable existential phenomena) within which "to exist".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:29 pm

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:58 am For contrast.

It begs inquiry as to the practicality(?): first begin with what is practically(!) obvious:

"I am (in a state of) existence..."

and note the peculiar ones try to reason otherwise:

I suppose I exist...
I think I exist...
I think (therefor!) I exist...
I believe I exist...
I assume I exist...

none of this is grounded with/in any real certainty. Abhorrently meticulous (a characteristic of the peculiar ones) handling(s) of such words as 'real' should duly beg as just and thorough a militant inquisition (not 'really') as to ones own practical reality viz. it should start with trying to be realistic with ones own self. If there is such a 'state' that might ever be tried for realism, it must first be with ones own existence over any/all else. To be abhorrently meticulous less the same for ones own 'realty' is 'real' absurd(ity): to "just get real" as it were, should suffice for any as it might for all.

I know I exist.

Which can not be acknowledged less one exist,
and which can not be acknowledged less existence
be, to let one be,
to ever ask for
a definition
of existence
in-and-of-itself.

deriving simply:

existence
i. state: as in acknowledgement(s) to/of self
ii. acknowledgement(s) in/as/of a 'state' of existence
(ie. as of inhabiting in habitable existential phenomena) within which "to exist".

The title says for Eod, if you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:29 pm

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:58 am For contrast.

It begs inquiry as to the practicality(?): first begin with what is practically(!) obvious:



and note the peculiar ones try to reason otherwise:



none of this is grounded with/in any real certainty. Abhorrently meticulous (a characteristic of the peculiar ones) handling(s) of such words as 'real' should duly beg as just and thorough a militant inquisition (not 'really') as to ones own practical reality viz. it should start with trying to be realistic with ones own self. If there is such a 'state' that might ever be tried for realism, it must first be with ones own existence over any/all else. To be abhorrently meticulous less the same for ones own 'realty' is 'real' absurd(ity): to "just get real" as it were, should suffice for any as it might for all.



Which can not be acknowledged less one exist,
and which can not be acknowledged less existence
be, to let one be,
to ever ask for
a definition
of existence
in-and-of-itself.

deriving simply:

The title says for Eod, if you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

I apologize: I admit I definitely assumed your assumption - that all must exist in a single unified being(ness). Therefor, assuming we are united thusly, and assuming you have no ill will towards either yourself or me (in knowing I have none towards either myself or you) it would serve as a common denominator to try for a definition of 'existence': that is, unified, and thus such a debate must reflect unity.

I therefor try to prove unity by, rather than debating against you, trying to debate with you, against CKIIT. We are both thus granted freedom of license to undermine CKIIT such to render it necessarily fallible. However, CKIIT must be given the same freedom(s) towards the inverse: not necessarily fallible (thus a hinge to advance how it might be possibly infallible). We can begin to engage by calling into question any/all tautology as needed from the onset, if not for any other reason to come to a common understanding of what CKIIT is (esp. by way of clarifying what it is not) before trying to undermine it (ie. you can try it as relentlessly as needed to understand how it might / might not be practical).

If this would suffice to you (pending your acknowledgement and agreement) I will render a thread: CKIIT <-> EOD with the following preface:

This engagement is agreeably unified towards a common end: to potentially highlight the problem of belief-in-and-of-itself as it may relate to the ongoing 'state' of (the) existence of human suffering esp. as it relates to the ongoing "believer" vs. "unbeliever" conflict(s) in/of which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are invariably a part of. There 'exists' therefor a united interest (of both involved) that this conflict(s) be given due consideration, if even only for the sake of consideration, towards cessation of any/all human suffering potentially resulting therefrom.

This ensures a common end and thus serves a practical purpose(s), the 'existence' of which being the nature of existence-in-and-of-itself (ie. starting point). If a starting point does not have a common end(s), it necessarily leads to needless bi-directional chaos less natural agency of void. Agreeing to disagree from the onset avoids this and creates a severance-point should there no longer be a commonality, thus less unity.

If this, suffices, let it, if not, let it be known another common framework that establishes *unity-from-the-onset: the only thing *needed by CKIIT.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:43 am .


1. If you grounded energy as a generality then we are left with equivocation as nullifying the term making the argument a revolving circle around...nothing.

If it were 'nothing', it could not be measured, nor viewed, nor quantified. you are ignoring the 5 senses.

2. If you narrow it down to emotion then you have to define motion. Mass as conserved energy is potential unactualized motion....but you are using a basic active/potential aristotelian dualism with just a plane empty assumption of what motion is...this is fine and all but you are left with a tautology of "motion" that is only valid if it continually progresses leaving the definiton of "energy" as changing constantly.

I called it motion because at the core of all the movements is something not well defined. cannot be seen, nor measured. Mathematically scientists can compensate for the unknowns to model the behaviors, but our current abilities do not allow our species to explore it with our sensory capability. It could be because we cannot yet measure beyond the speed of light, or see small enough to determine what space-time really is. So the basis of 'energy' remains generic. but it is something seen and measurable by the 5 senses via tools or otherwise. The substance is beyond thoughts alone, and are verified by others through repeating of experiments. your reasoning is erasing the validity of the bodies sensory capabilities and assuming only thought is the foundation of all that exists

Any requirement of definition thus becomes a dynamic endeavor and we are left with basic forms of arguments rather than arguments itself.

contradiction negates this statement. it is the same as arguing there isn't an argument. Saying 'nothing' is saying something. but so is saying something then become nothing.


3.. Its a contradictory argument as if all things are composed of energy then the tools themselves are made of energy and you are creating not just energy by the definition of energy as well.

You can't not detect energy if the tools are made of energy, as the devices determine the results of the experiment.

of course you can measure energy with energy. just not on the same frequency. two identical frequencies cancel out. (see electromagnetic spectrum)

Its circular reasoning:

yes, by how you are reasoning it, it is.

Hypothesis: All is energy.
Experiment: Use X device, but X device must be "energy" according to the hypothesis...so you are left with an experimental model which determines the hypothesis as right regardless of what you do.

despite all your studies you haven't explored science have you? critical reading maybe?

You are pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, and you model is contradictory under the standard fallacies.

4. "Energy is mass times the speed of light squared."

Energy is thus the multiplication of mass by its projection through acceleration (speed).

Mass takes form through projection, under acceleration, which results in volume.



This is no different than saying a 0d point (formless like mass) when projected becomes a 1d line.
The definition is a tautology of the basic geometry from which physics is defined, except instead of saying 0d point, mass is used, in stead of 1d line speed (which is volume through accleration) is used.

Under these terms we are left with physics being a tautology of geometry with this geometry being the assumption of space through linear and circular reasoning which is spatial...thus a further tautology where being itself is premised in space.

Tesla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:43 am .


1. If you grounded energy as a generality then we are left with equivocation as nullifying the term making the argument a revolving circle around...nothing.

If it were 'nothing', it could not be measured, nor viewed, nor quantified. you are ignoring the 5 senses.

2. If you narrow it down to emotion then you have to define motion. Mass as conserved energy is potential unactualized motion....but you are using a basic active/potential aristotelian dualism with just a plane empty assumption of what motion is...this is fine and all but you are left with a tautology of "motion" that is only valid if it continually progresses leaving the definiton of "energy" as changing constantly.

I called it motion because at the core of all the movements is something not well defined. cannot be seen, nor measured. Mathematically scientists can compensate for the unknowns to model the behaviors, but our current abilities do not allow our species to explore it with our sensory capability. It could be because we cannot yet measure beyond the speed of light, or see small enough to determine what space-time really is. So the basis of 'energy' remains generic. but it is something seen and measurable by the 5 senses via tools or otherwise. The substance is beyond thoughts alone, and are verified by others through repeating of experiments. your reasoning is erasing the validity of the bodies sensory capabilities and assuming only thought is the foundation of all that exists

Any requirement of definition thus becomes a dynamic endeavor and we are left with basic forms of arguments rather than arguments itself.

contradiction negates this statement. it is the same as arguing there isn't an argument. Saying 'nothing' is saying something. but so is saying something then become nothing.


3.. Its a contradictory argument as if all things are composed of energy then the tools themselves are made of energy and you are creating not just energy by the definition of energy as well.

You can't not detect energy if the tools are made of energy, as the devices determine the results of the experiment.

of course you can measure energy with energy. just not on the same frequency. two identical frequencies cancel out. (see electromagnetic spectrum)

Its circular reasoning:

yes, by how you are reasoning it, it is.

Hypothesis: All is energy.
Experiment: Use X device, but X device must be "energy" according to the hypothesis...so you are left with an experimental model which determines the hypothesis as right regardless of what you do.

despite all your studies you haven't explored science have you? critical reading maybe?

You are pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, and you model is contradictory under the standard fallacies.

4. "Energy is mass times the speed of light squared."

Energy is thus the multiplication of mass by its projection through acceleration (speed).

Mass takes form through projection, under acceleration, which results in volume.



This is no different than saying a 0d point (formless like mass) when projected becomes a 1d line.
The definition is a tautology of the basic geometry from which physics is defined, except instead of saying 0d point, mass is used, in stead of 1d line speed (which is volume through accleration) is used.

Under these terms we are left with physics being a tautology of geometry with this geometry being the assumption of space through linear and circular reasoning which is spatial...thus a further tautology where being itself is premised in space.

understanding energy isn't geometry, but geometry can be used in exploring where energy is.

False, first you definition of energy is subject to infinite regress. This continuum is linear in form, thus subject to basic spatial axioms.

Second, if you choose to just take energy as a term without defining it further, it becomes circular; energy is energy because it is energy. Again a spatial axiom.

Third if you ignore, or rather fail to assume the above two definitions, then you are left with assuming the definition. But this is subject to the point of view of the observer in the manner in which they assume it from an empty state of mind. They strictly just are imprinted by the term and give no thought to it. This absence of thought, absence of anything really, is intrinsically void much in the same degree or manner where the subconsciousness is formless and void.

Thus the common phrase "point of view" has a greater degree of depth when viewing the intrinsic emptiness of observation as differing little (if at all) from a 0d point due to its formlessness and void nature.

4. The fourth and final point (although there are more) is that from a strict physical perspective, where even "thought" is matter, the geometry applied is a byproduct of thought that is a result of physical processes. In shorter terms, matter is self referencing if thought is matter and matter seeks to define itself through spatial axioms.

Since you reject my definition, could you supply me one?

The question negates itself as whatever defintion provided is true in the respect it exists, but false as merely being a single context of existence. It cannot be answered in words without deriving a contradiction unless language is redefined, through language, as an interplay of "all through all" yet this statement only has truth value if assumed. It cannot be untrue, except as a lesser degree of truth relative to another in which case it is false, so either way you are left assuming some portion of the above as true.

To define existence is to exist as existence becomes a tautology of the word "define", thus existence is definition with definition being the relations of context, both abstract and physical, that are subject to and manifesting "form". Existence is form, under these respects, as context exists through context as "context".

This form occurs in a linear continuum, circular self referencing, and an assumed point of reference thus we are left with existence as expressed symbolically as "⊙".

The above definition, as a context, is true as self referential but is false precisely because it is a context that is empty in itself....the answer is a paradox.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:48 am


You still have to define what you mean by energy.

Tesla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:48 am


You still have to define what you mean by energy.

Indeed.

I'll ignore your paradox because it ignores the 5 senses.

False, all that is sensed is not only in the past, because of wave movements, but is interpreted according to memory.

Energy is difficult to define because it takes many forms.

And you are left with form as a constant necessitating space as a foundation.



lets examine your thoughts. they are intangible, but only happen within the tangible. the brain.
Actually heart transplant patients have changes in personality and memories, we cannot limit it to the brain alone.

The brain being of a 'real' substance makes it a part of reality. it exists. your thoughts exist intangibly within that mass of physical energy.

Actually the physical energy around the brain determines its function as well.
The nutrition involved, is literally evolution from cells as well as prior minerals, as well as its eventual entropy into what it "evolved" from leaves it subject to a cyclical nature of movements.

The tangible is what makes the intangible possible, and that is the core of existence. I call it energy, because nothing tangible is without it. and the intangible is also tangible, because it uses electricity and chemical components to make the intangible possible.

That is an assumed point of view and relative as you are left with a cycle of: (t->i->t->i...) and you can start just as reasonably with intangible.



Try this the next time you meditate. close your eyes. listen. smell. feel. hear.
then open your eyes. see.

Those senses are what our brains need to define ultimate reality.
Not really, because we interpret these senses from another vantage point of awareness. The senses are interpreted by an different nature of sight than what the body presents. What you argue works for people who chance handed an easy life...it does not work for 99 percent of the world.

but if you practice the logic of Buddhism, you may be trained to ignore its value. and like outdated religion, it needs updated too. because reality is not something you can define alone .

Define "alone", we alone interpret the perspectives of others.

I have experienced that form of meditation as well as those types of people who practice it. They are weak and self centered as well as easily pushed over by any form of contradiction the natural world imposes. This form of meditation, you argue, is fit for the dead. It holds no sense of compassion, mercy or balance.

It is a facade and causes the same suffering it seeks to avoid.

Try this, empty your mind and seek a death of the patterns of self...you will be able to push your body past limits you did not know existed, minister to the sick and dying in a manner where there needs for comfort are placed above your own, you will overcome adversity through a lack of fear, you will become detached from petty pursuits, and you will be able to see the delusional self defeating nature of the competitive modern world which causes a deep degree of complexity to most.

This emptiness of the self, real detachment, allows for the acceptance of pleasure without being subject or confined to it. Pleasure has its place, but to indulge the senses leads to confusion and idoltry.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Actually you failed to assume the title of the thread and its title/purpose in trying to push your religious beliefs.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am If "all is one" according to you, (I never said that once, I said reality is one and many,

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 amthen you would have respected your own limitations by respecting other's as an extension of yourself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 amStart another thread if you have an issue, CKIIT doesn't work...it negates itself.