|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:36 am
 |
|
|
 |
Niniva It would seem that this has become an arguement of symantics. Something that has gotten lost here are three definitions which I understand but which I don't think that you do. The first is creation. I just spent an entire post explaining that your version of creation is absurd. We still CALL it creation when we mold clay into something that has a defined shape. We create and idea....art....a statue....see how we give it a new name? It is not longer "just" clay it is something new, has different traits then it had before. You are stuck in this finite way of thinking...step outside your box for a moment and see the bigger picture here. "creation" is not simply limited to, (as you seem to think it absolutely is) the creation of some new sub molecular substance. Creation is something that is willed. Just as Tommy is "really" made UP of a bunch of things like sparks electricity metal and wires......without those things being formed INTO TOMMY (I'm repeating myself again I know) then they are not Tommy....leave them as they are and they don't make Tommy.....but design them exactly right and they DO create Tommy. Your definition of creation is so absurd that what you are saying is that not even human beings were created as we are made up of a bunch of molecules, atoms, and electrons formed exactly right.....so what you are saying is that creation is impossible? Is that what you are saying? That is absurd....why would we say we are creating things when we make a sculpture or Tommy then? What you are doing is applying too much to this, you are making creation far more specific then it needs to be. Creation has specifics....I have not created a substance no....I did not create the pieces that make Tommy....but I DID create Tommy. See what I mean? I am Tommy's creator because I took what I had and formed into something else MADE UP OF those parts. And that is still creation. Creation is not limited to making something out of nothing, that defies all sorts of physics. Let me make this simple for you by using a dictionary. Creation: 1. The Human act of creating. 2. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius. Where in those two definitions do you see that creation is limited to something that is impossible for human beings? Namely...making something out of nothing, or creating substance?
Bah, my friend, disregard what the dictionary says. Examples from figures of authority are hardly good examples from arguement. Plus, you can bet that the person writing that dictionary didn't take the time to have the debate we are, lest he do so on every other word that could be contested. Nonetheless, my point takes it even farther and says that under either definition, we cannot "create" something with greater or fewer dimensions. Whether we attribute a different meaning to it or not, something has to make it -become- something of different dimensions. My definition is humanly impossible to even try, although it would be able to create something with different dimensions. If you contest that it is possible, do it right now. The scientific community would really enjoy that. On the other hand, your definition is quite possible, though it would never change the original properties of the object. Neither can be used by your arguement to say we can "create" a three dimensional object.
By your definition, I would say that the "creation" you refer to is not a change in matter, but a change in the meaning you attribute to it. It may essentially be clay, but I attribute it as meaning something, representing something with a different meaning. It is a statue. By this definition, yes, we can create meaning.
However, though we can do this, no matter what meaning we attribute to an object it will still be 4 dimensional. I attribute this website as having 2 or 3 dimensions, yet if it is in fact 4 dimensional, then reality doesn't care what I think. It will still in fact be 4 dimensional.
Quote: That is not what I am suggesting at all, what I am suggesting is that it is not JUST clay any longer. It is a clay "STATUE" <---something totally different then it was before.
No, it's clay alright. The same thing as before, we just attribute a different meaning to it. It does not look like clay to me, therefore it is no longer clay. It is a statue. At the same time, it is also in reality clay. Do you see what I'm saying with this?
Quote: And I would contest right back and say that there are traits about Tommy that are totally impossible for those seperate parts to have all on their own and thus we have created something.....those objects may remain as they were just rearanged but when the are rearanged exactly right then suddenly we have something that is new....we have something that has the trait of being designed, engineered, formed purposefully, programmed, able to compute in a manor we want, existing in a certain space at a certain time and now that we have everything together with the EXACT TRAITS arranged in the EXACT maner we want then, and only then, have we created Tommy. Before that we have a pile of parts. And thus we move on to the other two definitions you are missing entirely. Infinity in Philosophy is not defined the same as it is in mathmatics. We know that there is nothing that is truely infinite and so it REALLY is a term that we use to describe something of imeasurable size in the sense that we don't now and believe we won't ever, have the ability to measure. We reffer to the universe as infinite, but we are quite aware that it ends out there somewhere, it does not continue on forever. Infinite does not mean "goes on and doesn't stop" It means "goes on beyond what our human ability to understand is currently capable of." We used to say that light traveled infinite distances instantly...we now can measure how fast it travels, we once thought that the atmosphere was infinite, we now know that it only goes out so far as the earths gravity can hold the gases in.
Indeed, the object has all of these qualities while together, and not all of them while separated, but if you look at its qualities you can individually see which ones were from their respective parts. Let's take a very simple example, say, a hammer since it is one of our simplest inventions. If you take the head off, you can see it's qualities of hardness, resilience and weight. If you take off the wooden handle, you can feel that it is soft and relatively light, perfect for its proposed use.
However, these traits do most definately need to be arranged in a certain way so you can use these properties, as you propose. By attaching the handle and the head, you can combine their traits so they're both usable at once. However, the very base qualities of the objects, aside from shape, will be sovereign to the objects themselves.
On to the two misconceptions we have:
Mathematics and philosophy, by my theory, should go directly hand in hand. You would probably be interested to know that Descartes was a mathematician, and these are his theories (although with my own additions). I think much the same way, that mathematics is indeed our clearest way of observing our universe. If you look back on my past writings, you will see that mathematics are being used frequently to make my points. Particularly, because mathematics are one of the simplest things that humans can understand, and one of the most difficult to corrupt or lie about.
In saying that a mathematical concept and a philosophical concept should be different, I would contest this to the very grave. Some of the simplest reasonings of the brain are simple additions and subtractions. In a sense, it is the simplest and most pure form of reasoning we have. Thus, will not accept this said simply as an absolute. Why do we say that infinity is not possible, and simply something we can't measure? If someone were to tell me that the "universe" as a space, the constantly expanding celestial body, is infinite, I would hotly disagree. In fact, from your examples I would probably be back in ancient Greece drinking a hemlock potion, simply because I told them that if they have multiple gods they cannot all be infinite (lol).
Quote: What you must remember is that Infinity was not the original word. The word finite was. And finite does indeed mean subject to limitations. But since it is not practicle to have things that are limited, without there being some word to describe those things which are seemingly unlimited, or appeare to be, or that we are unable to measure currently. Infinite is a term that you act as though you understand when you do not, you throw it around as though you really know what it means to be absolutely limitless but in truth applying that meaning to a word is a contridiction as you are using a word to describe something and are therefore limiting it. So Infinite cannot be limitless...but it can mean that we are simply unaware of it's limitations.
I notice you focus on the use of the word infinity, then we shall make a supposition. Something infinite has no reason to care what I think. I can call it whatever I like, it does by no means have to adhere to what I say. I could call infinity swogglewolfmosh, but that does not mean that's what it has to be. If something is infinite, it could likely change my words itself. Come now, I know there are better arguements against infinity than that. Throw me something that will really run my mind around in circles.
Quote: This is absurd. I would HIGHLY contest this point. If you were an ant you would not understand what a human was, nor could you see how large it truely is as you could not percieve it's height or width. All you know is that a human is infinite compared to you....SEEMINGLY without limits....TO YOU. And you would consider it that way until you found a way to measure a human in terms of an ant.....it's almost anoying that you take your subjective standpoint and cannot even throw it off to put yourself in the shoes of an ant.....think it over.....you're an ant.........an......ant......Who's lifespan is less then a week so by comparison, human beings live infinitely long because to an ant, you have never seen one die, never seen one be born, never seen or heard or know anything about it at all. All you know is that it quite literally is far more advanced then you and thus you percieve it as limitless when of course it is not.....just as we percieve space as vast and limitless when in fact it is not.
I would say that perception is irrelevant. If something is finite or infinite it is, I'm sure it likely doesn't care what I say. It will go right on its way being finite or infinite. Sure, it may seem infinite to me, but no matter hard I try to perceive it the object will be as it is. Unless you are of Berkeley's way of thinking, that ideas literally create the world? Keep in mind, this is much beyond what I was saying earlier about attributing differnet meaning to things. He says that meaning is what creates something the way it is, and that seems to be what you're suggesting.
Quote: No we have not. First law of thermodynamics. In a reactions no energy is ever lost or gained, it simply changes forms.
Then this perfectly backs up my definition, in your own words no less. Not only can we not create new matter, but we can't create new energy. Isn't that what this law describes?
Now, your definition describes changes in the way I perceive an object. This is simply changing the idea of something, and does not change its substance. The only way to say that this creates another dimension is to say that we do so in our imagination. Although, if my guesses are correct and the imagination does travel through electrical currents, then this is four dimensional as well... Perhaps this illustrates it more clearly for you?
Quote: This example is pointless as you are taking concepts and applying them to things that are by definition not concepts. You are taking sense data and comparing it to relations of ideas. And technically speaking four could create one.....up to four different times. You create one by changing the form of four into three and one...you loose nothing, the ingredients are the same but you now have 1 and 3. What needed to be present in order for me to create 1 from four? The human understanding of it...You can argue that I didn't create one all you want, that in four there are technically nothing more then four 1's put together to form four, but if they are then you don't only have 1.....you have 4. To seperate 1 from four I have to create 3 as well....and I have to create something else too don't I? Something that is not substance at all, but is conceptual.......I have to create seperation don't I?
You are right, this example is quite imperfect. I was only using it to illustrate that they are both finite. However, if I really wanted to be an a**, I could say that all numbers are simply different amounts of 1's thrown together... Or however many infinitely smaller units. Anyway, even in this case they are simply things added together. However, we can call it "multiple ones" or a four. Number metaphors are a bugger, aren't they?
I can see how this arguement could vex you, because it seems to run both of us around in circles. Thus, I say we abandon the semantics and look at the fact that even though our definitions are different, I have taken the course of explaining my reasons for saying that neither can create a new dimension, or reality, as the question originally was. So, for the sake of our arguement, how about we abandon trying to figure out which of our definitions are "creation" and pursue the original problem? I'm sure our readers are quite bored by now, and neither of us are enjoying this course of arguement, lol.
Quote: You see your definitions are too strict and are not the one's generally accepted in philosophy. Your definitions are too limiting and are thus invalid. Creation is not simply making something out of nothing....creating is simply making something. Infinity is not aboslutely without measure, it is a concept...a perception....it is essentially some word that we apply to things we don't currently have a method of measure for, for there can be no word to describe something that has no limits, a word describing it is labeling it with a limitation......congradulations thing that is unlimited....you are now limited to always being unlimited or else you are no longer unlimited are thus limited......wait..... We are turning this into an arguement of symantics so I would preffer it to end on that note....I personally can't stand those types of arguements as they are almost always an arguement of missunderstanding rather then an arguement to discover anything. Before we move on we must agree on a definition for these words or else we will wind up arguing in circles each one holding to his own definition, which makes for poor arguements.
Since when was being unlimited a limitation? Being unlimited certainly does not stop it from doing anything, therefore being unlimited does not limit something.
So it seems, in the end, that both of our definitions of creation are correct. That is indeed true. However, the question of infinity is an age old one, and a valid arguement if you wish to pursue it.
Also, remember, this is philosophy my friend, and creation/existance philosophy, so even moreso. Nothing is generally accepted, nor should we without defining it for ourselves. We are trying to define the terms of reality itself, so expect us to flip it upside down in the process (lol).
One last thing:
Quote: Furthermore, this would have to be a severely limited being. Not only would it be quite near blind and unable to use many of the other senses, it would quickly die because it cannot completely perceive our world. Imagine how often it would bump into things and such, unable to perceive their depth, heighth, width, or whatever you wish to take away. Such a thing would only be a severely handicapped 4 dimensional object, unable to see its true surroundings. Thus, this leads you to believe that if it does indeed exist, it must exist in a separate reality created simply for it. If one of these things were to exist, would it not have in a world that is akin to its senses if it is to survive?
Your arguement here is flawed as the theories for our reality that exist in quantum physics (my hidden love) almost all involve the reality around us existing in 11 dimensions at the very least.....eleven that they have CALCULATED, and some theories suggest as many as 36...so that means there are at least 7 that we cannot percieve and do not experience.
Again....you are so subjective in your viewpoints.
Think of yourself then...in a place that has 11 dimensions....and yet you can only experience four.....congradulations thats the reality you live in. Are you blind? Are you severely limited? Do you die at a rate thats any faster or slower than anyone else? You think in such human terms....step outside yourself and THINK....it is not impossible to percieve that whatever thing is created as lesser then us and only able to percieve 3 dimensions rather then four, considers ITSELF perfectly normal and healthy?
Sure to a being that exists in all 11 of the dimensions of our own reality we as humans must seem incredibly limited, but to us as humans we think we're all pretty normal. So would this creation that only experiences 3 dimensions. To IT...in IT's existance from IT's perspective it is perfectly normal....not limited at all....all it has ever known is three dimensions so that is what it accepts as normal and it cares nothing for that fourth one.
Just as we know nothing and could not know anything about those other 11 dimensions outside of mathmatics. And so we go one perfectly fine and considering ourselves normal without those other 7 dimensions being percievable.
I see what you're saying here, that in my example we perceive this as a long lifespan, yet we are killed much more quickly because we cannot perceive all of the existing dimensions. However, As I have contested before, reality does exist outside of our perceptions. Thus what you are proposing would be at least 11 dimensions of perception, and not reality itself. Surely, as you're reading this you are about to contest this, perhaps even with a slight amount of irritation because you know this is not true. Certainly the scientists did not mathematically discover at least 11 *perceptions*. Come now, you have told me to step outside of my mental box. So now, I ask that you step out of your own box of reducing everything to your perception, and not their logical ability to exist. So come, with both of us out of our boxes, let us resume the discussion, and hopefully back on the meaningful course we were hoping to navigate before. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:36 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:46 am
|
|
|
|
Arson Hiroha Niniva So I just typed up this whole response and because I'm at work and kept getting distracted by office duties Gaia auto logged me out and lost the whole thing...... And it was so much effort that I can't bring myself to do it again because I am simply too lazy. I'll try again later on. lol Ah, that's happened to me before. >_> Usually I remember to copy/paste, but man is it hell to retype all of that. Anyway, I look forward to the response when you post it.
Yeah it took me an hour and a half too with all those distractions...... =/
I was upset. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Niniva Arson Hiroha Niniva So I just typed up this whole response and because I'm at work and kept getting distracted by office duties Gaia auto logged me out and lost the whole thing...... And it was so much effort that I can't bring myself to do it again because I am simply too lazy. I'll try again later on. lol Ah, that's happened to me before. >_> Usually I remember to copy/paste, but man is it hell to retype all of that. Anyway, I look forward to the response when you post it. Yeah it took me an hour and a half too with all those distractions...... =/ I was upset.
Yep, problem with these large discussions, especially when we break it up into many quotes in one post. They usually turn into monsters that take a long time to reply to.
In addition, not only do they usually discourage readers, but they're also difficult to record for future use/reading material. Otherwise, one of us could likely write a book with just dialogues. Oh well, take your time. I may start up another thread on the social side, probably justice/government or something to that effect.
In any case, the more time you have, suppose the better the reply. Can't wait to hear it and start up the debate again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:47 am
|
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead an abandon the symantical arguement and stats very simply that creation, as I see it, is not limited solely to the creating of new substance, but that the creation of new ideas and the reforming of old substance into substance with a unique property that a substance left alone could never have. The property of being "this" thing.
On to infinity and finity. I am no sudgesting that being unlimited is a limitation.....what I am saying is that something that is describable is by the very definition limited to it's description. If you call something infinite then it, by definition cannot be finite, but you have made it so simply by describing it and being right. So it is circular. If something truely is infinite then you could literally say nothing about it, at least nothing that is meaningful lest you be right and thus limit it by being able to describe it acurately. Does this make sense?
As for mathmatics and philosophy, I agree with you, they do go hand in hand, systems of formal logic even resemble mathmatics almost exactly, but they are agreeably not the same. Mathmatics is a priori knowledge...definitions which cannot be argued or "relations of ideas" as Hume would probably call them. These are things that are unarguable and that, when the concepts are fully understood, are impossible to dispute. Philosophy almost never deals with questions that have undisputable answers.....philosophy most often tries to answer the questions that are not so obvious....And so Mathmatics is a tool to do that since it is the simplest to use as a tool for argumentation. So a philosophical concept that comes to knowledge would be "I think therefore I am".....can you show me a mathmatical concept that mirrors that? Or supports it? How about "A bachelor is an unmarried man, therefore a married man cannot be a bachelor". You can certainly relate these things to mathmatics but you cannot fully understand what either of them are saying by understanding 1+1=2....Mathmatics and Philosophy certainly intersect, but they are not one and the same.
Quote: Now, your definition describes changes in the way I perceive an object. This is simply changing the idea of something, and does not change its substance. The only way to say that this creates another dimension is to say that we do so in our imagination. Although, if my guesses are correct and the imagination does travel through electrical currents, then this is four dimensional as well... Perhaps this illustrates it more clearly for you?
This is Physicalism and is HIGHLY contestable as there really is no solid proof for it and quite frankly the moral implications are really terrible. Not to mention you'll have a very hard time defining how emotions occur....not the chemical reaction that makes your heart beat faster, but the literal "feeling" of being angry or sad....Whats it like? What's it like...not in your body but in your head?
Quote: I see what you're saying here, that in my example we perceive this as a long lifespan, yet we are killed much more quickly because we cannot perceive all of the existing dimensions. However, As I have contested before, reality does exist outside of our perceptions. Thus what you are proposing would be at least 11 dimensions of perception, and not reality itself. Surely, as you're reading this you are about to contest this, perhaps even with a slight amount of irritation because you know this is not true. Certainly the scientists did not mathematically discover at least 11 *perceptions*. Come now, you have told me to step outside of my mental box. So now, I ask that you step out of your own box of reducing everything to your perception, and not their logical ability to exist. So come, with both of us out of our boxes, let us resume the discussion, and hopefully back on the meaningful course we were hoping to navigate before.
This seems to contredict everything you have said to this point. Everything up to this point has been very rock solid metaphysically based. Then there's this. Perhaps I am missreading it but are you suggesting yourself that the reality we percieve in four dimensions is all the "true" reality there is?
Thats actually irrelivent though since I brought this up as an example to show that we ourselves are being living in a world....a reality....with Physical rules which apply to 11 or more dimensions and yet we ourselves only experience 4 of them. So....why is it hard to grasp that something created within our reality could potentially only experience 3 of them? Certainly that thing would exist in the same reality as us, but it would have been designed, and created to only know or be capable of experiencing 3 dimensions just as we as humans can only experience four of the 11 or more dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm going to go ahead an abandon the symantical arguement and stats very simply that creation, as I see it, is not limited solely to the creating of new substance, but that the creation of new ideas and the reforming of old substance into substance with a unique property that a substance left alone could never have. The property of being "this" thing.
I agree, and I'll join you in this abandoment. However, the problem remains. In my last arguement I stated that neither of our definitions of creation are capable of creating another dimension. Mine we both agree we cannot perform. Now, on to your definition. How does your definition of "creation" result in a new dimension? The things you combine are still 4 dimensional, thus are you argueing that our dimensions exist only in our perceptions of things?
Quote: On to infinity and finity. I am no sudgesting that being unlimited is a limitation.....what I am saying is that something that is describable is by the very definition limited to it's description. If you call something infinite then it, by definition cannot be finite, but you have made it so simply by describing it and being right. So it is circular. If something truely is infinite then you could literally say nothing about it, at least nothing that is meaningful lest you be right and thus limit it by being able to describe it acurately. Does this make sense?
A dictionary is based on real things, isn't it?
My arguement is that definitions aren't limitations of things, they're simply stating the object's state of being- hence the word 'stating', possibly. My definitions don't tell the object what to be; the object influences my definitions. If, say, a box were in fact not rectangular, I simply wouldn't call it a box. The box just told me how to define it, I didn't tell the box what to be. I cannot call the box a sphere and make it become so. The same is the case with infinite things. I propose that you are describing an infinite being limiting my definitions of it, not my definitions limiting the infinite being. Finite or infinite, I don't believe objects to be limited by definitions. Definitions are simply based on objects. Otherwise, we live in a world simply of our thoughts.
Quote: As for mathmatics and philosophy, I agree with you, they do go hand in hand, systems of formal logic even resemble mathmatics almost exactly, but they are agreeably not the same. Mathmatics is a priori knowledge...definitions which cannot be argued or "relations of ideas" as Hume would probably call them. These are things that are unarguable and that, when the concepts are fully understood, are impossible to dispute. Philosophy almost never deals with questions that have undisputable answers.....philosophy most often tries to answer the questions that are not so obvious....And so Mathmatics is a tool to do that since it is the simplest to use as a tool for argumentation. So a philosophical concept that comes to knowledge would be "I think therefore I am".....can you show me a mathmatical concept that mirrors that? Or supports it? How about "A bachelor is an unmarried man, therefore a married man cannot be a bachelor". You can certainly relate these things to mathmatics but you cannot fully understand what either of them are saying by understanding 1+1=2....Mathmatics and Philosophy certainly intersect, but they are not one and the same.
Indeed, though it is a great way to illustrate things. Though, both of your examples can be illustrated mathematically. For the first, if something is being acted upon or is acting, then something has to exist to act. For 1+1 to equal 2, both 1's must exist, or the result is either one 1 or just 0. For the married or unmarried, it's a simple way of logic, and incredibly easy to illustrate with mathematical process. Bachelor = unmarried, and unmarried =/= married. Therefore, Bachelor =/= married.
However, infinity is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts are a way to logically observe the universe. Therefore, infinity must be logical. (Man, that statement is mathematical too... No escaping the mathematical arguement, is there?)
Quote: This is Physicalism and is HIGHLY contestable as there really is no solid proof for it and quite frankly the moral implications are really terrible. Not to mention you'll have a very hard time defining how emotions occur....not the chemical reaction that makes your heart beat faster, but the literal "feeling" of being angry or sad....Whats it like? What's it like...not in your body but in your head?
I don't really have concern for what someone well versed in philosophy would call my theories, their name should not define them. My theories are likely vastly different from the school of philosophy you're describing. There's no reason morality cannot exist as well as matter. Indeed, you don't even know what my concept of matter is, however I am leaving you clues in the earlier part of this post.
In addition, do emotions always tell you what you think is morally right, or are the two separate? Can I feel very good emotionally while doing certain evils? Or do you define the just as what feels good?
Quote: This seems to contredict everything you have said to this point. Everything up to this point has been very rock solid metaphysically based. Then there's this. Perhaps I am missreading it but are you suggesting yourself that the reality we percieve in four dimensions is all the "true" reality there is?
No, I am suggesting that there is reality beyond just the things that we perceive. I am suggesting that these realities do exist, although on another plane of sorts where we are completely unable to perceive them. They do not exist in our dimension, and are completely sovereign to their own. Our laws do not affect them because they do not exist within our own. I cannot create the lower or higher dimensions because they are not even within the same laws as our dimension for me to create them, by your definition of mine. This and the next section are the synthesis of my arguement.
Quote: Thats actually irrelivent though since I brought this up as an example to show that we ourselves are being living in a world....a reality....with Physical rules which apply to 11 or more dimensions and yet we ourselves only experience 4 of them. So....why is it hard to grasp that something created within our reality could potentially only experience 3 of them? Certainly that thing would exist in the same reality as us, but it would have been designed, and created to only know or be capable of experiencing 3 dimensions just as we as humans can only experience four of the 11 or more dimensions.
Basically, doesn't that mean that we aren't 4 dimensional, but we simply think we are? Either way you cut it then, we are not 4 dimensional creatures. We are 11 dimensional creatures who are deluded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:04 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: I agree, and I'll join you in this abandoment. However, the problem remains. In my last arguement I stated that neither of our definitions of creation are capable of creating another dimension. Mine we both agree we cannot perform. Now, on to your definition. How does your definition of "creation" result in a new dimension? The things you combine are still 4 dimensional, thus are you argueing that our dimensions exist only in our perceptions of things?
As I said I am abandoning the symantical arguement as it gets us nowhere. I don't know why you are still holding onto that I believe we can create new dimensions or anything like it as I have said repeatedly now that I agree with you. That the new dimensions are NOT created. I'd apreciate a little more attentiveness to what I have said.
Quote: A dictionary is based on real things, isn't it? My arguement is that definitions aren't limitations of things, they're simply stating the object's state of being- hence the word 'stating', possibly. My definitions don't tell the object what to be; the object influences my definitions. If, say, a box were in fact not rectangular, I simply wouldn't call it a box. The box just told me how to define it, I didn't tell the box what to be. I cannot call the box a sphere and make it become so. The same is the case with infinite things. I propose that you are describing an infinite being limiting my definitions of it, not my definitions limiting the infinite being. Finite or infinite, I don't believe objects to be limited by definitions. Definitions are simply based on objects. Otherwise, we live in a world simply of our thoughts.
The idea that something is mathmatically limitless is absurd as there is quite literally no such thing. Everything can be measured if we have the means to measure it and thus "infinite" is not a mathmatical term it is a theoretical term and is only applied to perception. The only reason you call something infinite....again....is because you view it as such. In the future however it may not appear so inifinite. There is also a strong arguement from a skeptical standpoint that we really only DO live in a world of thought, as things are percieved to exist but you cannot outrightly prove their true existance. If you did not think something existed, that of course does not mean it does not exist.....but what if NO ONE thinks something exists? In other words....they have never percieved it and have had no experience of it at all? Even if it truely existed metaphysically would we know about it? No....nor would we consider it as existing since it is has yet to be experienced, and so nothing truely exists "to humanity" unless someone somewhere experiences it in some way. Metaphysically this is not true of course...but we would never know the difference and thus the thing might as well not exist.
Quote: Indeed, though it is a great way to illustrate things. Though, both of your examples can be illustrated mathematically. For the first, if something is being acted upon or is acting, then something has to exist to act. For 1+1 to equal 2, both 1's must exist, or the result is either one 1 or just 0. For the married or unmarried, it's a simple way of logic, and incredibly easy to illustrate with mathematical process. Bachelor = unmarried, and unmarried =/= married. Therefore, Bachelor =/= married. However, infinity is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts are a way to logically observe the universe. Therefore, infinity must be logical. (Man, that statement is mathematical too... No escaping the mathematical arguement, is there?)
As I stated, you cannot call and unmarried man 1 unless you fully understand the concept of a bachelor....It is a logical formula yes, and so I conceed the point. I still maintain that there are such things as theoretical entities or ideas which have no mathmatical basis. I can think of alternate worlds theory, or ethical theories by the dozens. Or pretty much any theory at all in truth as you can use some formula to support it but you cannot ever call it a priori as you can mathmatics.
Quote: I don't really have concern for what someone well versed in philosophy would call my theories, their name should not define them. My theories are likely vastly different from the school of philosophy you're describing. There's no reason morality cannot exist as well as matter. Indeed, you don't even know what my concept of matter is, however I am leaving you clues in the earlier part of this post. In addition, do emotions always tell you what you think is morally right, or are the two separate? Can I feel very good emotionally while doing certain evils? Or do you define the just as what feels good?
No you are right, but to say that emotions are simply electrical impluses brought on by synaps from the brain stem through the central nervous system is to say the emotions don't truely exist and so I was merely warning you of the implications of making such a bold claim and what camp it would fall under....namely physicalism or Naturalism. Applying a term to a specific theory does not necessarily make it wrong nor does it group you in with them but if they are literally exactly the same you must conceed that you are a physicalist and therefore deal with the problems that face that theory as your own theory is a mirror image of it.
Not that I am saying your theory IS physicalism, that was a mistake on my part I should have said "sounds like" rather then "is".
On to your questions....No emotions do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong. "feelings" are not a plausable arguement for doing the right thing as many times doing the right thing feels terribly wrong, though you know it is right. Thus the reason why following your heart is not always the most rational thing.
Quote: No, I am suggesting that there is reality beyond just the things that we perceive. I am suggesting that these realities do exist, although on another plane of sorts where we are completely unable to perceive them. They do not exist in our dimension, and are completely sovereign to their own. Our laws do not affect them because they do not exist within our own. I cannot create the lower or higher dimensions because they are not even within the same laws as our dimension for me to create them, by your definition of mine. This and the next section are the synthesis of my arguement.
With this I mostly agree. Though I would baulk at the idea that they do not exist within our own pecievable dimensions. I should think it totally possible that they can exist within all 11 dimensions including our own without us being able to percieve them, or at least not all of them. Much like a God principle, though I do not want to turn this into a theist debate but if an entity did exist in all eleven dimensions is it not plausable that the part of that entity that DOES exist within our own four dimensions may in fact appear to be defying the laws of these dimensions when in fact it is actually obeying the laws of other dimensions...or all dimensions as a whole? I should think not. Thus the thing would appear to be God...or at least to us since we cannot fully understand it.
Quote: Basically, doesn't that mean that we aren't 4 dimensional, but we simply think we are? Either way you cut it then, we are not 4 dimensional creatures. We are 11 dimensional creatures who are deluded.
It is probably better put to say that we are 4 dimensional beings in an 11 dimension reality (or however many dimensions there truely turns out to be) If we cannot percieve other dimensions then it doesn't really make sense to me that we exist within them either. And as you already stated Quote: I am suggesting that these realities do exist, although on another plane of sorts where we are completely unable to perceive them. They do not exist in our dimension, and are completely sovereign to their own.
It could be EITHER that we only exist in four dimensions OR that we exist in 11 dimensions but only experience four. What is truely the case will most probably never be known to us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:33 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: As I said I am abandoning the symantical arguement as it gets us nowhere. I don't know why you are still holding onto that I believe we can create new dimensions or anything like it as I have said repeatedly now that I agree with you. That the new dimensions are NOT created. I'd apreciate a little more attentiveness to what I have said.
That seems to be a complete turn in your arguement. Were you not argueing for "Timmy", or whatever we named that robot, or how this website is a 2 dimensional creation?
Come now, we can't discount creation completely. Something cannot come from nothing. So where did it come from, and how?
Quote: The idea that something is mathmatically limitless is absurd as there is quite literally no such thing. Everything can be measured if we have the means to measure it and thus "infinite" is not a mathmatical term it is a theoretical term and is only applied to perception. The only reason you call something infinite....again....is because you view it as such. In the future however it may not appear so inifinite. There is also a strong arguement from a skeptical standpoint that we really only DO live in a world of thought, as things are percieved to exist but you cannot outrightly prove their true existance. If you did not think something existed, that of course does not mean it does not exist.....but what if NO ONE thinks something exists? In other words....they have never percieved it and have had no experience of it at all? Even if it truely existed metaphysically would we know about it? No....nor would we consider it as existing since it is has yet to be experienced, and so nothing truely exists "to humanity" unless someone somewhere experiences it in some way. Metaphysically this is not true of course...but we would never know the difference and thus the thing might as well not exist.
You start your statement with an absolute, and in philosophy this is a dead end road. Ignore this arguement about measurement, and try to actually *prove* that infinity does not exist. The mathematical concept. By all means, it does exist in mathematics, like pi, or 3.14etc.. Also, if I divide certain numbers I could get a number that repeats until my calculator decides to stop trying to measure the immeasurable. This is already infinite in one attribute. I don't really care what may *seem* infinite, I am speaking of true infinity. Those numbers, mathematically, never end. Something *impossible* to measure, simply because it *literally* does not end. We can't come up with some new science to measure it, because we will simply be back in the same place, trying to run to the end of an endless road.
What you're describing here seems purely Barkleyan. The only difference is that he faces the problem of how things pop in and out of existance when nothing is perceiving them by saying god perceives everything. He further contends that for something to be meaningful, it has to be reducable to the senses, and notions, or combinations of these. To refute him, you need to take down his universe and create your own "meaningful" concept of matter, which he says does not exist.
As for his refutation, you need to attack his concept of "meaning" itself, by disproving his theory with it. First of all, he does not have a "meaningful" concept of God because it is not reducable to his experience. He agrees that god cannot be perceived with the senses, but states he is seen through notions, or imagination. However, understanding and imagination are entirely separate. For example, the chaleogon, or a 1000 sided figure. I know what it is, and the difference between it and a 1001 sided figure, but if I try to picture them they look like the same blurry mass. Thus, his universe has no god, and the keystone is removed. Things pop in and out of existance, and the universe is reduced to a realm of imagination that changes beyond the way we know the world is. Every time we don't see something, it changes based on ideas. Thus, we create unicorns and such wherever we aren't looking, and they should remain there.
Thus, all that's left is a concept of matter, one that challenges his very definition of "meaning". Something that isn't reducable to the senses. Hmm, I won't tell you, but it is very present in all of my arguements. I'll just say that the definition (of matter and space) is in the universal language...
Quote: As I stated, you cannot call and unmarried man 1 unless you fully understand the concept of a bachelor....It is a logical formula yes, and so I conceed the point. I still maintain that there are such things as theoretical entities or ideas which have no mathmatical basis. I can think of alternate worlds theory, or ethical theories by the dozens. Or pretty much any theory at all in truth as you can use some formula to support it but you cannot ever call it a priori as you can mathmatics.
No, I would say that all concepts are simply mental equations thrown onto each other, each adding more complexity. Theory is based on probability, correct? For example, a bachelor is simply defined as not being married. Thus, to define a married person, add two people together, subtract the ability to go out and pick up chicks, include the probability figure of children based on your dispositions... And everything from there, the concepts below it, are even more equations. They are all simply added on top of one another.
Hmm, and if someone came up with a theory that wasn't mathematical in nature, I would say that it isn't very probable... Whoops, I did it again.
Quote: No you are right, but to say that emotions are simply electrical impluses brought on by synaps from the brain stem through the central nervous system is to say the emotions don't truely exist and so I was merely warning you of the implications of making such a bold claim and what camp it would fall under....namely physicalism or Naturalism. Applying a term to a specific theory does not necessarily make it wrong nor does it group you in with them but if they are literally exactly the same you must conceed that you are a physicalist and therefore deal with the problems that face that theory as your own theory is a mirror image of it. Not that I am saying your theory IS physicalism, that was a mistake on my part I should have said "sounds like" rather then "is". On to your questions....No emotions do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong. "feelings" are not a plausable arguement for doing the right thing as many times doing the right thing feels terribly wrong, though you know it is right. Thus the reason why following your heart is not always the most rational thing.
Then describe to me what physicalism is, and where I am in line with it and what its flaws are. You have already admitted that emotions are unimportant, and what is right and wrong is far more just than what you feel. Emotions are just simplifications of what you believe is right and wrong, and push you to action. Thus, if you agree with me on that point, why are my propositions bold?
If you want to take out this part of the arguement, you will probably have to take out the bit before this about logic being based on mathematics. Otherwise, I'll just say that ethics can be determined through logic, which is also mathematical. Who ever said that the just cannot be derived through mathematics, or logic? If you wish to assume that I hold some cold ethical position, I basically have the same ethical philosophy as Socrates. The pursuit of truth, wisdom, moderation and beauty.
Quote: With this I mostly agree. Though I would baulk at the idea that they do not exist within our own pecievable dimensions. I should think it totally possible that they can exist within all 11 dimensions including our own without us being able to percieve them, or at least not all of them. Much like a God principle, though I do not want to turn this into a theist debate but if an entity did exist in all eleven dimensions is it not plausable that the part of that entity that DOES exist within our own four dimensions may in fact appear to be defying the laws of these dimensions when in fact it is actually obeying the laws of other dimensions...or all dimensions as a whole? I should think not. Thus the thing would appear to be God...or at least to us since we cannot fully understand it.
Hmm, so your arguement is that God cannot exist in all of these dimensions? In this case, it goes back into our earlier arguement about infinity, which means we should probably combine those two sections. Your meaning is somewhat difficult to determine in this paragraph, so could you state it a bit more clearly?
Quote: It is probably better put to say that we are 4 dimensional beings in an 11 dimension reality (or however many dimensions there truely turns out to be) If we cannot percieve other dimensions then it doesn't really make sense to me that we exist within them either. And as you already stated Quote: I am suggesting that these realities do exist, although on another plane of sorts where we are completely unable to perceive them. They do not exist in our dimension, and are completely sovereign to their own. This is precisely what I am stating here as well....if things are completely unable to percieve a dimension then reguardless of if that dimension exists metaphysically....we do not experience it and are thus not a part of it. Though this is all just bantering back and forth as I am willing to admit that both options are totally possible. It could be EITHER that we only exist in four dimensions OR that we exist in 11 dimensions but only experience four. What is truely the case will most probably never be known to us.
Hmm, I highly doubt that what you're describing is somewhat different from what the scientists said they found; 11 different dimensions, not dimensional creatures. The theory you stated doesn't seem to be dimensions at all, but simply little buggers floating around that see in 5-11 dimensions, but you must admit that the creatures themselves cannot just be the dimensions. Otherwise, if we exist in their dimension, we're already 11 dimensional creatures.
That you accept both is definately a step in where I am going, but not where I wish to end this discussion. My ideal is that only the first option is possible, and the second is entirely contradictory. Should we reach that conclusion (or I am disproven), then I shall be satisfied. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: That seems to be a complete turn in your arguement. Were you not argueing for "Timmy", or whatever we named that robot, or how this website is a 2 dimensional creation? Come now, we can't discount creation completely. Something cannot come from nothing. So where did it come from, and how?
My arguement for Tommy was one to show you that creation is not impossible within the dimensional bounderies that we percieve....IE 4 dimensions. With the materials given to me I can create....via imagination...I can create a new image, I can create a design...I can reform and create a named thing out of other named things that were previously created.....
That does not mean that I have created something outside of my percievable dimensions...or outside of the dimensions of reality as a whole. You are not making any attempt to understand the difference....and that is very...taxing...
Something cannot come from nothing unless it was self caused in which case it was always there....and thus never created but existance is simply an attribute of its being.
Quote: Ignore this arguement about measurement, and try to actually *prove* that infinity does not exist.
Very well. Think of one thing in the unvierse of reality that is completely and totally imeasurable....one thing that you cannot possibly imagine that we would ever be able to calculate the distance of, nor the size of, nor apply any form of measurement too. Can you name even one? If you cannot imagine it...then it cannot exist. Thats a mental experiement. No matter what THING you can imagine...you can imagine it...you can imagine it's size, you can imagine it's weight...you can concieve of how long or large or heavy or massive it is....but you cannot concieve of something....that is inconcievable. That is absurd and thus there is no thing in the known universe that is absolutely infinite.
Quote: What you're describing here seems purely Barkleyan. The only difference is that he faces the problem of how things pop in and out of existance when nothing is perceiving them by saying god perceives everything. He further contends that for something to be meaningful, it has to be reducable to the senses, and notions, or combinations of these. To refute him, you need to take down his universe and create your own "meaningful" concept of matter, which he says does not exist. As for his refutation, you need to attack his concept of "meaning" itself, by disproving his theory with it. First of all, he does not have a "meaningful" concept of God because it is not reducable to his experience. He agrees that god cannot be perceived with the senses, but states he is seen through notions, or imagination. However, understanding and imagination are entirely separate. For example, the chaleogon, or a 1000 sided figure. I know what it is, and the difference between it and a 1001 sided figure, but if I try to picture them they look like the same blurry mass. Thus, his universe has no god, and the keystone is removed. Things pop in and out of existance, and the universe is reduced to a realm of imagination that changes beyond the way we know the world is. Every time we don't see something, it changes based on ideas. Thus, we create unicorns and such wherever we aren't looking, and they should remain there. Thus, all that's left is a concept of matter, one that challenges his very definition of "meaning". Something that isn't reducable to the senses. Hmm, I won't tell you, but it is very present in all of my arguements. I'll just say that the definition (of matter and space) is in the universal language...
I've heard all of this before and since I do not agree with the idea that reality is determined but our experiences and senses it is a lot of information wasted really, but it is good to think about and good to know you can get around Berkley, but I find your arguement to be unsatisfying to me. I didn't say that "God" was experiencing it and thus it all existed.
I said that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE experiences it in some manor and thus it exists in the conceptual sense. Metaphysically out perception has quite literally nothing to do with reality....but would it matter if it was real if we could not percieve it?
Quote: Hmm, I won't tell you, but it is very present in all of my arguements. I'll just say that the definition (of matter and space) is in the universal language...
I don't like this. I don't need to play guessing games with you. I don't know you very well but I'll clue you in to something about me. I'm not in high school anymore. I discuss things on a daily basis with world class philosophers....having myself be baited to try and guess at what theory you actually hold is first assuming that I actually care what your theory is...swaying my interest toward dropping the conversation. Either state what you think or do not...do not bait me into chasing you around so you can play the "I'm not tellllliiiinnnnngggg" game. I'm not interested. I have better things to do
Quote: No, I would say that all concepts are simply mental equations thrown onto each other, each adding more complexity. Theory is based on probability, correct? For example, a bachelor is simply defined as not being married. Thus, to define a married person, add two people together, subtract the ability to go out and pick up chicks, include the probability figure of children based on your dispositions... And everything from there, the concepts below it, are even more equations. They are all simply added on top of one another.
Again you are missinterpreting.
First, subtracting the ability to go out and pick up chicks is absurd as marital infidelity happens all the time, but it does not make a man a bachelor. He is still married. The arguement of whether or not theory is based on probability is also flawed as theories are not at all based on probability. On has nothing to do with the other accept to prove SOME theory's truth.
A theory that isn't mathmatical in nature. How about any theory on human behavior? Or Evolution theory? Or any theory in biology at all?
Quote: Then describe to me what physicalism is, and where I am in line with it and what its flaws are.
Physicalism put very simply is the idea that brain functions are the same as mind functions. In other words all your thoughts, emotions, ideas, motor functions are controlled by the firing of c-fibers in the synaps of nerver cells in the central nervous system. In other words the "mind" is nothing more then your "brain" they are on in the same and thus YOU are nothing more then the physical properties that make up YOU.
Problems with this include that your body repleneshes quite literally every cell within it including brain cells every 7 days...so if you are nothing more then the physical things that make you up then how is it you maintain a personality even though all of the physical parts of you are completely different at the particle level? There are several other problems as well such as experience theory. Physicalism can help us determine that we are seeing...or touching as it stimulates a part of the brain and we can watch this on brain scans.....but we cannot determine what that is "like" for the person experiencing it. In some people asphixiation is scary...for some it's sexually arousing....in both it stimulates the same parts of their brain.
Logic and ethics...again are not the same. Once MIGHT be able to be used while determining some things but justice cannot ALWAYS be determined by logic as logic would suggest that the rational action is always the best action but in some cases the rational action is actually not the best action to take.
Quote: Hmm, so your arguement is that God cannot exist in all of these dimensions? In this case, it goes back into our earlier arguement about infinity, which means we should probably combine those two sections. Your meaning is somewhat difficult to determine in this paragraph, so could you state it a bit more clearly?
The argument I was making is actually the exact opposite. That God may very well exist in all dimensions but would appear to those who can only see and experience four dimensions as a aborition or something otherworldly. It isn't really that important so I wouldn't turn my head over it if I were you.
Quote: Hmm, I highly doubt that what you're describing is somewhat different from what the scientists said they found; 11 different dimensions, not dimensional creatures. The theory you stated doesn't seem to be dimensions at all, but simply little buggers floating around that see in 5-11 dimensions, but you must admit that the creatures themselves cannot just be the dimensions. Otherwise, if we exist in their dimension, we're already 11 dimensional creatures. That you accept both is definately a step in where I am going, but not where I wish to end this discussion. My ideal is that only the first option is possible, and the second is entirely contradictory. Should we reach that conclusion (or I am disproven), then I shall be satisfied.
Actually dimensions scientifically are virtually the same as other planes of existance and I tend to subscribe to planar theory, or string theory more then the rest myself. But I was not speaking of "creatures" I am speaking of the dimensions themselves in a state of existance totally and completely seperate from human experiences of them.....I'm not sure how that translates to 5-11 dimension seeing little buggers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: My arguement for Tommy was one to show you that creation is not impossible within the dimensional bounderies that we percieve....IE 4 dimensions. With the materials given to me I can create....via imagination...I can create a new image, I can create a design...I can reform and create a named thing out of other named things that were previously created..... That does not mean that I have created something outside of my percievable dimensions...or outside of the dimensions of reality as a whole. You are not making any attempt to understand the difference....and that is very...taxing... Something cannot come from nothing unless it was self caused in which case it was always there....and thus never created but existance is simply an attribute of its being.
I apologize if you feel I am leading you around in circles, but I only assumed it was the other case because it is more relevant to our arguement. Anyway, lets move on if that's the case.
However, it would be good to note that the last paragraph sounds exactly like what someone would say in argueing for a god. Thus, we've gotten around a huge hurdle of how a God is created; one has to have always existed if one does exist now.
(Though, that does remind me of an old Ontological arguement for god, which I find more funny than enlightening: xd
God is infinite,
Not existing is a limitation,
And therefore god must exist.
It's just hilarious how logical it sounds, yet I doubt it proves anything)
Quote: Very well. Think of one thing in the unvierse of reality that is completely and totally imeasurable....one thing that you cannot possibly imagine that we would ever be able to calculate the distance of, nor the size of, nor apply any form of measurement too. Can you name even one? If you cannot imagine it...then it cannot exist. Thats a mental experiement. No matter what THING you can imagine...you can imagine it...you can imagine it's size, you can imagine it's weight...you can concieve of how long or large or heavy or massive it is....but you cannot concieve of something....that is inconcievable. That is absurd and thus there is no thing in the known universe that is absolutely infinite.
Ah, but you must distinguish between understanding and Imagining. I don't remember if I used this example below, but take a spaceship. I know what a spaceship is, I know what it does, and I have a general concept of it. However, it's so complex that I could never truly imagine it in the way that you say. However, I can look at it and distinguish a pattern so I can determine what it is. Infinity is the same way; I can look at it, and distinguish a pattern telling me that it is infinite, but I will never be able to fully imagine him in the same way that I could not a space shuttle. To say that infinity doesn't exist because I can't imagine it (not understand), then spaceships have been disproven also.
Also, take your concept of god, and I'm just going to guess that if you do believe in one, he created himself. For him to create himself, he would have to have always existed. Thus, he is already infinite in the aspect of time. They say that time and space are equivalent, so that raises the definite possibility he is infinite in space. Thus, the rest of the infinities come pouring in from there, based on his simple infinity in time having always existed.
Quote: I've heard all of this before and since I do not agree with the idea that reality is determined but our experiences and senses it is a lot of information wasted really, but it is good to think about and good to know you can get around Berkley, but I find your arguement to be unsatisfying to me. I didn't say that "God" was experiencing it and thus it all existed. I said that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE experiences it in some manor and thus it exists in the conceptual sense. Metaphysically out perception has quite literally nothing to do with reality....but would it matter if it was real if we could not percieve it?
Well I've already stated that if that were true, everything would change whenever something isn't looking at it. Since God doesn't hold it in place, if I were to completely whitewash a room (destroying all life within), we could create whatever we wanted to within. However, that is not the case. Whenever I am hot or cold, it is imposed upon me, I cannot choose it. For it to be imposed upon me, something has to exist to impose it.
Hmm, and sure, it would matter. There is always the case that it is acting upon some inanimate object, which may reach us in a dominoe effect, or that we will perceive it in the future.
Quote: I don't like this. I don't need to play guessing games with you. I don't know you very well but I'll clue you in to something about me. I'm not in high school anymore. I discuss things on a daily basis with world class philosophers....having myself be baited to try and guess at what theory you actually hold is first assuming that I actually care what your theory is...swaying my interest toward dropping the conversation. Either state what you think or do not...do not bait me into chasing you around so you can play the "I'm not tellllliiiinnnnngggg" game. I'm not interested. I have better things to do
Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious. It was present in almost all of my arguements, and my very rationalization for getting around Berkeley. What's the most universal language there is? Mathematics, of course. Geometry, equations, logical sequences. They are present within everything. The only reason I proposed it in the form of a question was because I thought it was painfully obvious.
Hmm, and I apologize if this discussion has somehow developed that detestment you have. Keep a cool head, this is merely philosophy. All we're discussing is ideas, there is no reason to take our discussion with that kind of attitude. If you're in a philosophical discussion, to say you don't care what the other person thinks seems absolutely childish. Whether I'm 4 years your junior or not, I would expect at least that courtesy.
Quote: Again you are missinterpreting. First, subtracting the ability to go out and pick up chicks is absurd as marital infidelity happens all the time, but it does not make a man a bachelor. He is still married. The arguement of whether or not theory is based on probability is also flawed as theories are not at all based on probability. On has nothing to do with the other accept to prove SOME theory's truth. A theory that isn't mathmatical in nature. How about any theory on human behavior? Or Evolution theory? Or any theory in biology at all?
The part about picking up women was a lighthearted example, without much seriousness. I'm not going to go into all the reasons a person is considered "married", I just wanted to give an example.
Human behavior is often contrived of "If, then..." statements, and thus is mathematical in logic. Evolution concerns patterns, and both it and biology concern the shapes and functions of the human body, which uses chemistry and geometry when concerning shape, like the shapes of appendages, blood vessel routes, and internal organs. Basically, all concepts of form are contrived of geometrical thinking, and thus that knocks out a huge portion of theories and such. The rest are through the scientific method and such, or logical processes.
On theories not always concerning probabilities, naturally for it to be a viable theory it would have to be probable? Otherwise it isn't a theory, but simply a mindless rambling.
Quote: Physicalism put very simply is the idea that brain functions are the same as mind functions. In other words all your thoughts, emotions, ideas, motor functions are controlled by the firing of c-fibers in the synaps of nerver cells in the central nervous system. In other words the "mind" is nothing more then your "brain" they are on in the same and thus YOU are nothing more then the physical properties that make up YOU. Problems with this include that your body repleneshes quite literally every cell within it including brain cells every 7 days...so if you are nothing more then the physical things that make you up then how is it you maintain a personality even though all of the physical parts of you are completely different at the particle level? There are several other problems as well such as experience theory. Physicalism can help us determine that we are seeing...or touching as it stimulates a part of the brain and we can watch this on brain scans.....but we cannot determine what that is "like" for the person experiencing it. In some people asphixiation is scary...for some it's sexually arousing....in both it stimulates the same parts of their brain. Logic and ethics...again are not the same. Once MIGHT be able to be used while determining some things but justice cannot ALWAYS be determined by logic as logic would suggest that the rational action is always the best action but in some cases the rational action is actually not the best action to take.
Who in this discussion ever said that the soul can't exist? Naturally, there is matter which we can barely observe. For example, certain types of gases or energy. I see no reason why my theories cannot include a soul (or the "divine light", or mind, as Descartes calls it), as that could simply be a type of matter we have yet to discover yet. Or have yet to measure, as you may put it. After all, Descartes himself was a major mathematician. A lot of this is based on his theories.
Also, I would flip it around and say that justice is always logical. It is always good for yourself and those around you. Otherwise, it is not justice. If it is for some greater good, that benefits not only yourself mentally but others as well, then it is already logical. There is no other way to put it.
Quote: The argument I was making is actually the exact opposite. That God may very well exist in all dimensions but would appear to those who can only see and experience four dimensions as a aborition or something otherworldly. It isn't really that important so I wouldn't turn my head over it if I were you.
Ah, good thing I asked then. It may very well important, though I do agree that God would very likely exist in all dimensions.
Quote: Actually dimensions scientifically are virtually the same as other planes of existance and I tend to subscribe to planar theory, or string theory more then the rest myself. But I was not speaking of "creatures" I am speaking of the dimensions themselves in a state of existance totally and completely seperate from human experiences of them.....I'm not sure how that translates to 5-11 dimension seeing little buggers.
Hmm, I may have misunderstood in thinking that you meant differently dimensioned creatures, in the sense that they could only perceive their assigned "dimension". You'll have to remember, I'm approaching this from a purely philosophical standpoint, and I know very little about scientific studies on the matter.
Hmm, and I suppose them not being able to experience each other would imply that they are separate, at least in that sense. To this I'll agree, as long as they are divided as such. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:15 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ah, but you must distinguish between understanding and Imagining. I don't remember if I used this example below, but take a spaceship. I know what a spaceship is, I know what it does, and I have a general concept of it. However, it's so complex that I could never truly imagine it in the way that you say. However, I can look at it and distinguish a pattern so I can determine what it is. Infinity is the same way; I can look at it, and distinguish a pattern telling me that it is infinite, but I will never be able to fully imagine him in the same way that I could not a space shuttle. To say that infinity doesn't exist because I can't imagine it (not understand), then spaceships have been disproven also. Also, take your concept of god, and I'm just going to guess that if you do believe in one, he created himself. For him to create himself, he would have to have always existed. Thus, he is already infinite in the aspect of time. They say that time and space are equivalent, so that raises the definite possibility he is infinite in space. Thus, the rest of the infinities come pouring in from there, based on his simple infinity in time having always existed.
Your example is a strong one but combatted easily by saying.....can anyone imagine the parts of the space ship in their exact form? Certainly they can....someone built it and designed it and so THEY had to have imagined it and could certainly imagine it now. A mental experiment is not for subjectivity...it is to say that there are no recognizable "patterns" for infinity....or else the thing would be limited to those patterns. You used the example of pi earlier. 3.1415926.....they call it and infinite number because it literally exists with no KNOWN pattern. No repeating numbers nothing that could make it recognizably repeating and thus seemingly a calculated chaos.
This is straying from my point but in any case you do not disprove a space ship because you can also imagine the person who imagined the controls of a space ship, and engineer that could design it, and if you can't then visit kenedy space center and meet one. Point being that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE indeed CAN imagine those things exactly as they are. NO ONE ANYWHERE, can imaging something infinite.
On the concept of God stated above, that is not "my" concept of God. "my" concept of God is irrelevant here really, but first let me express that you cannot say anything meaningful about God you can only speculate and so it is worthless for anything besides entertainment. Secondly God did not create himself...being self caused is to not be created but to simply exist...thirdly time and space are not equivelant they are relative. That is not the same, and fourthly.....again....we only percieve God to be infinite because we are not God and thus he appears to be infinite...if he exists. It does not follow that God actually is, literally, infinite. If that were true then God literally is everywhere since he cannot be limited and thus you are God....God makes up you, and I am God...God makes up me....and is in my space just as he is in yours. God is both physical and NOT physical since he cannot be limited....thus he is also both real AND imagined.....those are all contridictions and thus God is not infinite....If God exists, put simply, he exists as he is....that does not include a human term applied this things we do not understand. That is illogical and since God also has the attribute of being indescribable you cannot also describe him as being infinite.
Quote: Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious. It was present in almost all of my arguements, and my very rationalization for getting around Berkeley. What's the most universal language there is? Mathematics, of course. Geometry, equations, logical sequences. They are present within everything. The only reason I proposed it in the form of a question was because I thought it was painfully obvious. Hmm, and I apologize if this discussion has somehow developed that detestment you have. Keep a cool head, this is merely philosophy. All we're discussing is ideas, there is no reason to take our discussion with that kind of attitude. If you're in a philosophical discussion, to say you don't care what the other person thinks seems absolutely childish. Whether I'm 4 years your junior or not, I would expect at least that courtesy.
It is obvious in some ways, but again they are "your" views which could be a massive mixture of a trillion different other views throughout history. I have no detestment other then being treated with the same disrespect as you are saying that I am not showing you. Respect that my own philosophy my also be that I have my opinions and that not even the greatest Philosophers in the world are going to sway me to actually "care" what their world view is. I only care what my world view is and how they think I may be viewing it wrong. What their total world view is, is irrelevant to me and mine.
Quote: Human behavior is often contrived of "If, then..." statements, and thus is mathematical in logic. Evolution concerns patterns, and both it and biology concern the shapes and functions of the human body, which uses chemistry and geometry when concerning shape, like the shapes of appendages, blood vessel routes, and internal organs. Basically, all concepts of form are contrived of geometrical thinking, and thus that knocks out a huge portion of theories and such. The rest are through the scientific method and such, or logical processes. On theories not always concerning probabilities, naturally for it to be a viable theory it would have to be probable? Otherwise it isn't a theory, but simply a mindless rambling.
Actually I will concede this point. I could attempt to argue it but I see where you are comming from and it would be difficult to manouver around and indeed a pointless tangent.
[quoteWho in this discussion ever said that the soul can't exist? Naturally, there is matter which we can barely observe. For example, certain types of gases or energy. I see no reason why my theories cannot include a soul (or the "divine light", or mind, as Descartes calls it), as that could simply be a type of matter we have yet to discover yet. Or have yet to measure, as you may put it. After all, Descartes himself was a major mathematician. A lot of this is based on his theories.
Also, I would flip it around and say that justice is always logical. It is always good for yourself and those around you. Otherwise, it is not justice. If it is for some greater good, that benefits not only yourself mentally but others as well, then it is already logical. There is no other way to put it.
This is interesting because there is nothing that I could find published on a theory like this. I had the same exact thought myself...that perchance the mind body problem may be solvable very easily if the "soul" or "mind" were not some otherworldly thing but something quite physical...a form of energy that is either imeasurable or that we just simply have no way of detecting at the moment. I discussed it with my physics professor at great length and, of course, him being a phenominalist he had to see proof of it before he believed it and I offered nothing but hypotheticals but he said it was certainly possible and that there is indeed an amount of chaotic energy in the universe that has no known patterns or functions and it is speculated (very limited speculation I might add) that this chaos is where the mind opperates, though it is impossible to say much about as it is also impossible to prove since this energy is chaotic in a literal sense meaning it is completely and totally irradic and unpredictable....but to put it better since that seems slightly confusing even to me, it isn't chaotic energy...it's a chaotic portion of reality. A mathmatical inconsistency within reality wherein we do not know what happens nor could we speculate on the potential of it. It's subquantum physics and is pretty streamline and not at all well known so don't get your hopes up but it sounds intriguing to me.
In any case "justice" is a loosely defined term...as there are two kinds of justice, one for you personally, and one for the greater good. In all actuality begining a war over oil prices eventually drops oil prices as we win the war and suddenly we are all happily paying $1 a gallon at the gas pump. This is the greater good....forcefully encouraging oil tycoons to stop being so ******** stingy and release the oil they have for EVERYONE to use.
Now...is starting a war over something material "just"? Is this "Justice" for those that work for the oil tycoon and were simply following orders unaware of the situation all around the world? No...so as you can see there are times where justice is not always logical. Logic suggests a war is the most rational action...justice suggest not starting a war is the most rational action. This is a very realistic example, but please don't think I'm relating this to the current "war" if thats what you can even call it, because I'm not it was just the first thing that came to mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Your example is a strong one but combatted easily by saying.....can anyone imagine the parts of the space ship in their exact form? Certainly they can....someone built it and designed it and so THEY had to have imagined it and could certainly imagine it now. A mental experiment is not for subjectivity...it is to say that there are no recognizable "patterns" for infinity....or else the thing would be limited to those patterns. You used the example of pi earlier. 3.1415926.....they call it and infinite number because it literally exists with no KNOWN pattern. No repeating numbers nothing that could make it recognizably repeating and thus seemingly a calculated chaos. This is straying from my point but in any case you do not disprove a space ship because you can also imagine the person who imagined the controls of a space ship, and engineer that could design it, and if you can't then visit kenedy space center and meet one. Point being that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE indeed CAN imagine those things exactly as they are. NO ONE ANYWHERE, can imaging something infinite. On the concept of God stated above, that is not "my" concept of God. "my" concept of God is irrelevant here really, but first let me express that you cannot say anything meaningful about God you can only speculate and so it is worthless for anything besides entertainment. Secondly God did not create himself...being self caused is to not be created but to simply exist...thirdly time and space are not equivelant they are relative. That is not the same, and fourthly.....again....we only percieve God to be infinite because we are not God and thus he appears to be infinite...if he exists. It does not follow that God actually is, literally, infinite. If that were true then God literally is everywhere since he cannot be limited and thus you are God....God makes up you, and I am God...God makes up me....and is in my space just as he is in yours. God is both physical and NOT physical since he cannot be limited....thus he is also both real AND imagined.....those are all contridictions and thus God is not infinite....If God exists, put simply, he exists as he is....that does not include a human term applied this things we do not understand. That is illogical and since God also has the attribute of being indescribable you cannot also describe him as being infinite.
Hmm, I would dissagree and say that not only can you not imagine all of the parts at once, but you also can't completely imagine the part (the unique mix of alloys, molecular structure, exact coloring). When you imagine the part, that's all you see. Just a general concept of the part.
Even the greatest of scientists resort to blueprints and plans rather than pure imagination. Even though such a genius could exist, he could not possibly imagine every aspect of the space shuttle at the same time. There are always minor anomolies, as well as many dimensions that go into building one. As is the case with the 1000 sided figure and the 1001 sided figure, I know their difference. I know that the one side distinguishes them from each other. Though, not only does a 1000 sided figure have a possibility for existance, even a super-genius could never imagine it. God, or infinity, is the same way. As the chaleogon or the shuttle, we will never be able to imagine it, however that does not mean it does not exist. Also, there is the possibility a God could imagine itself, seeing as its mind is infinite as well.
Hmm, and I see no reason why he could not make up both me and you. Unfortunately, I don't possess some kind of God-repelling bubble. By this logic, it does seem possible that we are all part of God (I've definately heard that before...)
On the point of God being indescribable, this goes back to my point of understanding vs. imagination. I cannot imagine it, but there is no reason why I can't know certain aspects of it.
Quote: It is obvious in some ways, but again they are "your" views which could be a massive mixture of a trillion different other views throughout history. I have no detestment other then being treated with the same disrespect as you are saying that I am not showing you. Respect that my own philosophy my also be that I have my opinions and that not even the greatest Philosophers in the world are going to sway me to actually "care" what their world view is. I only care what my world view is and how they think I may be viewing it wrong. What their total world view is, is irrelevant to me and mine.
In that case, you seem to be quite philosophically handicapped to be unable to consider other possibilities. The inability to be swayed is probably one of the greatest handicaps a philosopher can have. Also, if you truly don't care what my world view is, then how do you intend to refute me? By trying to refute me, you already seem to care.
Quote: This is interesting because there is nothing that I could find published on a theory like this. I had the same exact thought myself...that perchance the mind body problem may be solvable very easily if the "soul" or "mind" were not some otherworldly thing but something quite physical...a form of energy that is either imeasurable or that we just simply have no way of detecting at the moment. I discussed it with my physics professor at great length and, of course, him being a phenominalist he had to see proof of it before he believed it and I offered nothing but hypotheticals but he said it was certainly possible and that there is indeed an amount of chaotic energy in the universe that has no known patterns or functions and it is speculated (very limited speculation I might add) that this chaos is where the mind opperates, though it is impossible to say much about as it is also impossible to prove since this energy is chaotic in a literal sense meaning it is completely and totally irradic and unpredictable....but to put it better since that seems slightly confusing even to me, it isn't chaotic energy...it's a chaotic portion of reality. A mathmatical inconsistency within reality wherein we do not know what happens nor could we speculate on the potential of it. It's subquantum physics and is pretty streamline and not at all well known so don't get your hopes up but it sounds intriguing to me.
Hmm, that does sound very interesting, though I'm hardly well versed enough in these sciences to know for sure. However, it seems that the case is one of these two things: That the mind/soul is a physical, but immeasurable energy/mass, or: The mind and soul are in some way not physical (perhaps imaginary?), and seem to disobey the universe's laws. However, there is always the possibility that we haven't read every page of the rulebook, in which case, I must concede that I simply do not know.
Quote: In any case "justice" is a loosely defined term...as there are two kinds of justice, one for you personally, and one for the greater good. In all actuality begining a war over oil prices eventually drops oil prices as we win the war and suddenly we are all happily paying $1 a gallon at the gas pump. This is the greater good....forcefully encouraging oil tycoons to stop being so ******** stingy and release the oil they have for EVERYONE to use. Now...is starting a war over something material "just"? Is this "Justice" for those that work for the oil tycoon and were simply following orders unaware of the situation all around the world? No...so as you can see there are times where justice is not always logical. Logic suggests a war is the most rational action...justice suggest not starting a war is the most rational action. This is a very realistic example, but please don't think I'm relating this to the current "war" if thats what you can even call it, because I'm not it was just the first thing that came to mind.
Hmm, now you're getting into my realm. I would say that the two, the greater good and good of the self, are by no means separate. By following the greater good, you also improve yourself and reach a higher state of mind. Although it may harm the body or ambitions, the greater good will always improve the mind.
And you know the thing we do for loosely defined terms? We define them! Since I'm following the Socratic way of thinking, I would say that the greater good is the pursuit of truth, wisdom, beauty and moderation. Pursueing each of these things not only benefits yourself, but also those around you who can share in your pursuits. Also, without any of these components you are doomed to a very unhappy (and much shorter) life. Without truth, I may stand out in front of a train thinking that I'll be hit by flying pillows... Without wisdom, I may know that the train is coming, but not know how to get out of the way. Without beauty, I see no merit in the world and am quickly driven to suicide (train again, possibly). Without moderation, I could drink too much and collapse on the train's tracks.
My proposition is that not only is Justice (the pursuit of these things) necessary for happiness, but also the only condition for happiness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
