Philosophy Now Forum

The failure of philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. The failure in acknowledging principles as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole.

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where perspective, through assumption, is first and foremost.

All facts broken down exist as atomic facts, points of observation reduced to further points. The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction.

When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

It is the convergence and divergence of phenomena into points that necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Logic is an intuitive direction to a center point.

The most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed."

"the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed."

However, the controversy would consist of this being your thing. And incongruent to the other beings. Here you are, a foundation for a science, one that will die with you, its only clear prism.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:48 pm "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed."

However, the controversy would consist of this being your thing. And incongruent to the other beings. Here you are, a foundation for a science, one that will die with you, its only clear prism.

Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:37 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:48 pm "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed."

However, the controversy would consist of this being your thing. And incongruent to the other beings. Here you are, a foundation for a science, one that will die with you, its only clear prism.

Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

This is true of any and all disciplines. The main difference is that science also gets the sort of results that you and your mumbo-jumbo can never achieve

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:37 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:48 pm "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed."

However, the controversy would consist of this being your thing. And incongruent to the other beings. Here you are, a foundation for a science, one that will die with you, its only clear prism.

Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

This is true of any and all disciplines. The main difference is that science also gets the sort of results that you and your mumbo-jumbo can never achieve

Philosophy is definitive by nature, the sciences and religions by proxy are definitive as well. In understanding the nature of definition the nature of science and religion are revealed simultaneously.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:37 pm
Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

This is true of any and all disciplines. The main difference is that science also gets the sort of results that you and your mumbo-jumbo can never achieve

Philosophy is definitive by nature, the sciences and religions by proxy are definitive as well. In understanding the nature of definition the nature of science and religion are revealed simultaneously.

ROLF

Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

The assumption seems to be that a certain kind of being, namely you, is the basis for the knowledge. Once you, or beings sufficient similar to you, are dead there would be nothing left of the "unit of measure" used.

ROLF

If I thought your degree in history was more than a fantasy I would recommend you ask for your money back.

Your understanding of everything else is somewhat worse, but, I suppose you didn't buy it and so can't get a refund on natural bad judgment.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:05 am

This is true of any and all disciplines. The main difference is that science also gets the sort of results that you and your mumbo-jumbo can never achieve

Philosophy is definitive by nature, the sciences and religions by proxy are definitive as well. In understanding the nature of definition the nature of science and religion are revealed simultaneously.

ROLF

Still yet to provide a definition of logic.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:33 pm

Science is built upon a series of assumptions whose proof lies in its connection to other assumptions.

The assumption seems to be that a certain kind of being, namely you, is the basis for the knowledge. Once you, or beings sufficient similar to you, are dead there would be nothing left of the "unit of measure" used.

The nature of assumption relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. The formless state of one phenomena, sand for example, is imprinted by another form, a rock, where reality becomes self assuming as the continually imprinting and re imprinting of forms.

is imprinted by another form, a rock,

What does "imprinted" mean?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:54 pm

is imprinted by another form, a rock,

What does "imprinted" mean?

To recieve defintion through an isomorphism. The formless state repeats the definition of what is imprinted upon it as an inversion of what projects onto it.

Take sand for example, it takes the inverse imprinting of the rock and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by it.

To recieve defintion through an isomorphism.

In what sense does the possible "recieve defintion through an isomorphism."?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 7:10 pm

To recieve defintion through an isomorphism.

In what sense does the possible "recieve defintion through an isomorphism."?

Possibility is manifested empirically through the projection of abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension. For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. The form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension.

The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form

What form does it have, atom form? Or, the form of "absence" of form? In other words, how is it kept in the understanding at all?