0
   

Quantity is Fundamental

 
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:17 pm
@attano,
attano;172245 wrote:

Change:
If I am hot, and then cold, are quantities still in play? You mean quantities of heat and quantities of cold?
What about an intermediate state, a splash in a cold pool after a sauna? Isn't there a fraction of time when I would perceiving two quantities and not one? my feet in the cold water, my head still hot because of the hot steam in the sauna? Is there still a unit?
(This is, indeed, a tricky one. I guess that no one has ever survived to tell us what he perceived, and if he did he was too shocked to tell).

I confess that I feel a bit disoriented here.
Just hope that the above questions are not totally out of the scope of your hypothesis, because it'd mean I have understood nothing :listening:.

I refer once more to ineffability of sensation and emotion. I created a triangle diagram that's in my pictures. One version is labeled. I agree with Kojeve/Hegel and maybe Plato/Aristotle that man is Logos incarnate. The Logos in itself is absolute pure concept, and number gets very close to this. So does Being. But since Logos is incarnate, it makes its contingent concepts in relation to sensation and emotion. Aristotle saw this, I think. Forms of mud and hair. All we ever speak with are forms, forms, forms, contingent concepts. Because the proto-concept must be intuited. No name is its true name. Because it's the clay that concept is made of. It exist in logical space, except that logical space is made of it. It's a wild thought, you see. It's utterly prior to all intelligibility. Parmenides and Heraclitus both danced around it. Parm focused on the static finite absolute concept, and Heraclitus looked at flux..but also logos of course.

If it interests you, check out my Ineffability and (In)significanc of Qualia threads. These treat of continuous sensation/emotion.

THanks for engaging me on this. :detective:

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 06:19 PM ----------

HexHammer;172115 wrote:
Can you give some examples of excatly where this quantity comes to play, I fail to see it in my everyday, also in all my friends everyday.


I'm suggesting that every noun you use is a unity. I'm suggesting that every object you see is a unity. All pluralities are unities. If I say 5 birds, the number 5 is a unified plurality. THat's why and how we have ONE symbol for it. We can't think 5 unless we think of 5 ones put together.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 06:24 PM ----------

William;172106 wrote:
Recon, your thread is accurate if you mean and understand fundamentally ONE. When we think individually quantity, "more" is created. We can't create more. It's impossible. It's like trying to put ten gallons of water into a five gallon bucket, ha! There just "is" and no more than that. More and any thought of it creates waste and nature will take it's/her/god's course to maintain it's purity/balance.

Yes, I do mean ONE, but probably in a different way than you are responding to. I'm saying that unity is prior to all other concepts. All of them. So this is going at the heart of human logic/discourse. In itself it's not about ethics, although it does have consequences for ethics, if one experiences it vividly. All concepts save one are contingent. There are no "true" or "final" concepts.

Now metaphorically speaking, I think we are all "in God" all the time. But "God" is just a concept, and the concept of God is not God, in my book. Because all concepts are created and destroyable except the proto-concept, pure unification or indeterminate being. This concept is essentially finite. Man doesn't think the infinite. But he does LIVE it, experience it emotionally and with his senses. The letter kills/blinds. The spirit (love, beauty) gives life, is life.

Thanks for your post, William. :flowers:
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172267 wrote:
I'm suggesting that every noun you use is a unity. I'm suggesting that every object you see is a unity. All pluralities are unities. If I say 5 birds, the number 5 is a unified plurality. THat's why and how we have ONE symbol for it. We can't think 5 unless we think of 5 ones put together.
Sorry to say, this sounds like a shoe horn fit to me.

Only a few times a day, I will actually apply quantity to whatever I do.
- how much food on plate
- how much ketchup on food
- how much food can most efficiently be stuffed in big stupid mouth
- GOBBLE GOBBLE ..STUFF ..EAT ..MUNCH MUNCH *saying come caveman grunting* ...BUUUUURP!!!!

- no Q in turning on PC
- no Q in turning on TV and find channel
- no Q in surfing the internet
- no Q in debunking and molesting other philosophers
- no ...OMG too many infactions MUST BEHAVE!!!
- no Q in accidently misbehaving towards other philosopher
- no Q in playing WoW
- no Q in taking a ride on cycle
- no Q in taking the phone and verbally abuse some friends
- no Q in saying weird stuff to friends on MSN
- no Q in watching stocks falls ...(as usual)
- a little Q in how much tea-thingy in the filter, a little Q in amount of water to be boiled

.........so yearh, the amount of Quantity applied are very limited Imo, sure it IS there, but it's isignificant.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:55 pm
@Reconstructo,
With respect, I still think you aren't seeing what I'm saying here. It's not just numbers. That's an important point. I'm saying that the nature of all human thought is quantified. We think in unities, essences, singularities. It's not about how much. It's the fact that you say "ketchup" which is one word for this one abstraction "ketchup." Ketchup is one.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:56 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172307 wrote:
With respect, I still think you aren't seeing what I'm saying here. It's not just numbers. That's an important point. I'm saying that the nature of all human thought is quantified. We think in unities, essences, singularities. It's not about how much. It's the fact that you say "ketchup" which is one word for this one abstraction "ketchup." Ketchup is one.
One sees, what one wants to see.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:58 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172308 wrote:
One sees, what one wants to see.


Well, there's some truth to that. You say "one sees." Why do we humans think of ourselves as one human? Why do we see our body with it all its parts as one body? Why do we see our personalities as one personality, when we are a collision of millions of thoughts and emotions? The conceptual mind unifies. The conceptual mind is unification. That's my theory. anyway.:flowers:
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172257 wrote:
You didn't mention whether you thought that proof was just persuasion or not.
In mathematics, proofs are demonstrations, and if they're correct, then they're true, by definition, so, I guess that's not what you mean. My view is that human beings are social animals and, as such, they need to be able to effectively communicate about a consistent and common reality. The function of proofs here, in my opinion, would be to establish claims that no human can rationally disagree with. However, this view seems to have, at best, very limited applicability, for several reasons. For example, if somebody disagrees with this claim, then they're irrational by definition, and I think that's very difficult to support, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any way to privilege a logic or even to justify realism about logics. From this angle, intuitionism seems the safest bet, as only that which is demonstrable is acceptable in intuitionism. On the other hand, intuitionism may need to be severely restricted in order to remain consistent, due to various problems associated with choice, for example: Diaconescu's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Choice%20Principles.pdf
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:21 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172340 wrote:
In mathematics, proofs are demonstrations, and if they're correct, then they're true, by definition, so, I guess that's not what you mean. My view is that human beings are social animals and, as such, they need to be able to effectively communicate about a consistent and common reality. The function of proofs here, in my opinion, would be to establish claims that no human can rationally disagree with. However, this view seems to have, at best, very limited applicability, for several reasons. For example, if somebody disagrees with this claim, then they're irrational by definition, and I think that's very difficult to support, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any way to privilege a logic or even to justify realism about logics. From this angle, intuitionism seems the safest bet, as only that which is demonstrable is acceptable in intuitionism. On the other hand, intuitionism may need to be severely restricted in order to remain consistent, due to various problems associated with choice, for example: Diaconescu's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Choice%20Principles.pdf


Excellent reply. I haven't really thought much of the issues in those links. I have read a little about the axiom of choice, but not much.

My concerns about proof are really just a further pointing to my loose intuitionism. Why do certain manipulations of symbols or words persuade almost all of us, and others only some or none of us? Indeed, we are social creatures, and I would argue that scientific "objectivity" is founded on consensus, on social practice. As you indicate/imply rationality is as tricky as proof, really. Who is rational? Those who are persuaded by proofs. What are proofs? What all rational humans find persuasive.

Of course I don't want to seem trivial on the matter. I find proofs quite persuasive actually, so it's a matter of why. And this is why I think mathematics is at least founded on intuition. For instance, Euclid's proof of "always a greater prime number." We don't write out the endless primes because we can't. But we can "see" that there must be, and extend this seeing "infinitely." A potential infinite. I mention again that my intuitism isn't prescriptive in the least. I don't think mathematics should or must limit itself to intuitive constructions. I appreciate the beauty/logic of formalism, logicism, Platonism, all of these. The whole issue is deeply fascinating. If I focus on intuitism, its for philosophical reasons. The Form of Forms is involved here, in my view. And this is exciting stuff. Absolute indeterminate concept would be the cornerstone of all human thought.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172309 wrote:
Well, there's some truth to that. You say "one sees." Why do we humans think of ourselves as one human? Why do we see our body with it all its parts as one body? Why do we see our personalities as one personality, when we are a collision of millions of thoughts and emotions? The conceptual mind unifies. The conceptual mind is unification. That's my theory. anyway.:flowers:
You know the Fibb. spiral, and that Nautilus shell, usually people will use the shell as an representation of the Fibb. spiral, when it actually doesn't fit, the same I would say for this stuff that you are pushing on me :poke-eye:Laughing
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
I know that example, yes. And folks indeed do that. So your skepticism is quite respectable. And maybe I'm crazy, because I have found only a trickle of understanding on this idea. I definitely "see" something, but it might not be universal..
0 Replies
 
attano
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:19 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172267 wrote:
I refer once more to ineffability of sensation and emotion. I created a triangle diagram that's in my pictures. One version is labeled. I agree with Kojeve/Hegel and maybe Plato/Aristotle that man is Logos incarnate. The Logos in itself is absolute pure concept, and number gets very close to this. So does Being. But since Logos is incarnate, it makes its contingent concepts in relation to sensation and emotion. Aristotle saw this, I think. Forms of mud and hair. All we ever speak with are forms, forms, forms, contingent concepts. Because the proto-concept must be intuited. No name is its true name. Because it's the clay that concept is made of. It exist in logical space, except that logical space is made of it. It's a wild thought, you see. It's utterly prior to all intelligibility. Parmenides and Heraclitus both danced around it. Parm focused on the static finite absolute concept, and Heraclitus looked at flux..but also logos of course.

If it interests you, check out my Ineffability and (In)significanc of Qualia threads. These treat of continuous sensation/emotion.

THanks for engaging me on this. :detective:


You may stop in israel before arriving in Greece (or Berlin)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
(In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum)
John 1:1

I'll have a look to the suggested threads.




Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 01:41 pm
@attano,
attano;172459 wrote:


You may stop in israel before arriving in Greece (or Berlin)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
(In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum)
John 1:1

I'll have a look to the suggested threads.

Oh yes, John 1:1, a personal favorite.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 02:46:03