0
   

Definition of Reality

 
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:36 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;134492 wrote:
It is infinite outside of the boundaries, at least that is more important than inside.
A line need not be an infinite coordinate system until marked, because there are less infinite possibilities on a short line than on a long line.

The thing is, I don't think this is true. An inch of transcendental space is as long as a yard of transcendental space. It's freaky. Do you know about Cantor? I don't know much at all, except he wrestled with it.
Quote:

Debate among mathematicians grew out of opposing views in the philosophy of mathematics regarding the nature of actual infinity. Some held to the view that infinity was an abstraction which was not mathematically legitimate, and denied its existence.[47] Mathematicians from three major schools of thought (constructivism and its two offshoots, intuitionism and finitism) opposed Cantor's theories in this matter. For constructivists such as Kronecker, this rejection of actual infinity stems from fundamental disagreement with the idea that nonconstructive proofs such as Cantor's diagonal argument are sufficient proof that something exists, holding instead that constructive proofs are required. Intuitionism also rejects the idea that actual infinity is an expression of any sort of reality, but arrive at the decision via a different route than constructivism. Firstly, Cantor's argument rests on logic to prove the existence of transfinite numbers as an actual mathematical entity, whereas intuitionists hold that mathematical entities cannot be reduced to logical propositions, originating instead in the intuitions of the mind.[6] Secondly, the notion of infinity as an expression of reality is itself disallowed in intuitionism, since the human mind cannot intuitively construct an infinite set.[48] Mathematicians such as Brouwer and especially adopted an intuitionist[6] Finally, Wittgenstein's attacks were finitist: he believed that Cantor's diagonal argument conflated the intension of a set of cardinal or real numbers with its extension, thus conflating the concept of rules for generating a set with an actual set.[8]


---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 04:40 AM ----------

Scottydamion;134492 wrote:

If "one number" or the "only number" is the synthesis of all numbers, then perhaps one being or the only being is the synthesis of all beings? Maybe the universe really should be the true synonym for god, I'll be damned if Spinoza gets a word in!


Yes....Did you know Hegel loved Spinoza? But Hegel saw the difficulty there. Logos is necessary for the perception of eternity, and logos is essentially temporal. Heidegger had the same problem.

The absolute pure number is actually negativity itself! It's negativity that makes a cut in the continuum. how we name it is contingent! Our number systems are contingent. All that matters is that they are a pseudo-spectrum....

Heidegger was basically describing the basic number when he crossed out being.. But the true absolute number was the crossing out...So only logos/man can no number for pure negativity can only exist within being, else it could not be manifested.....even now I can only describe around it w/ words that are not it.. what do you think? (god is a minus sign. being is 1. man is negative one which is also a plus sign when overlapped...and also triangular if you put being on one corner, negativity on the other, and man or logos on top....(my avatar!)
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:27 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134503 wrote:
The thing is, I don't think this is true. An inch of transcendental space is as long as a yard of transcendental space. It's freaky. Do you know about Cantor? I don't know much at all, except he wrestled with it.


Hmm, I will have to look into Cantor. I think you should look up the "Casimir Effect", it is described on Wikipedia in Quantum terms but I'll try to sum it up here:

The Casimir Effect refers to a force that pushes two metal plates together when they are in close proximity in a vacuum. The basic idea is that a lesser number of infinite wavelengths can fit between the length of the separation of the plates than can fit outside of the plates. Therefore there is a net pressure from outside of the plates pushing them together.

This is where I draw a practical example of a lesser infinity. The example is not dependent on there being an infinite number of wavelengths, but for my usage it is, since I am trying to make an example of infinity.


Quote:
Yes....Did you know Hegel loved Spinoza? But Hegel saw the difficulty there. Logos is necessary for the perception of eternity, and logos is essentially temporal. Heidegger had the same problem.

The absolute pure number is actually negativity itself! It's negativity that makes a cut in the continuum. how we name it is contingent! Our number systems are contingent. All that matters is that they are a pseudo-spectrum....

Heidegger was basically describing the basic number when he crossed out being.. But the true absolute number was the crossing out...So only logos/man can no number for pure negativity can only exist within being, else it could not be manifested.....even now I can only describe around it w/ words that are not it.. what do you think? (god is a minus sign. being is 1. man is negative one which is also a plus sign when overlapped...and also triangular if you put being on one corner, negativity on the other, and man or logos on top....(my avatar!)


I did not know that, but it makes sense. How does logos being temporary conflict with perceiving eternity? Or, at the least, an idea of eternity?

So since negativity takes away specific characteristics, it is the true absolute number? That use of the word "number" is desperately trying to confuse me.

I think I see your avatar though. Man is negative one because we apply negativity to being, and in doing so we "add" them together? But this negation is not infinite is it? The "one number" is somehow the stopping point? As a stopping point, what does it represent? Is an example possible here?
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:32 am
@Scottydamion,
God bless you for understanding! And this is a response especially to the later part of your post...
Scottydamion;134516 wrote:

The Casimir Effect refers to a force that pushes two metal plates together when they are in close proximity in a vacuum. The basic idea is that a lesser number of infinite wavelengths can fit between the length of the separation of the plates than can fit outside of the plates. Therefore there is a net pressure from outside of the plates pushing them together.

This is where I draw a practical example of a lesser infinity. The example is not dependent on there being an infinite number of wavelengths, but for my usage it is, since I am trying to make an example of infinity.

Thanks for that reference. I'll check it out. It's important to remember that I'm not disputing the existence of "infinite" forces in nature, but only our ability to digitize them. But perhaps you were just pointing me there for another reason..it does sound fascinating.

Scottydamion;134516 wrote:

I did not know that, but it makes sense. How does logos being temporary conflict with perceiving eternity? Or, at the least, an idea of eternity?


Not temporary, exactly, but temporal. It is temporary in the sense that Hegel's system embraces mortality. Spinoza thought he was talking of God. Hegel knew that the only God that man could know was himself, and that this God would die with him.

It's only because the Logos is temporal, that eternity is revealed in the first place. It takes time for man to abstract his transcendental nature from his incidental experience. Also, the logos itself must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos, in the full meaning of the word, including its relation to "God" & the transcendental...

I just started two threads about the Absolute (a synonym of Transcendental) concerning this sort o thing.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:44 AM ----------

Scottydamion;134516 wrote:

So since negativity takes away specific characteristics, it is the true absolute number? That use of the word "number" is desperately trying to confuse me.

I think I see your avatar though. Man is negative one because we apply negativity to being, and in doing so we "add" them together? But this negation is not infinite is it? The "one number" is somehow the stopping point? As a stopping point, what does it represent? Is an example possible here?


Man, you are asking all the right questions. In a way, Yes, the minus sign is the absolute number, except that we cannot think pure negativity. So the absolute number is something like "i," which I will bet you are aware of as the imaginary number. And wouldn't you know it, it's both positive and negative (or neither) & it just happens to be the first person pronoun. Talk about luck!

The most we can do is to isolate pure negativity and pure being. Pure being is actually the same damn thing as transcendental space, for being is not conceivable as pure concept without both negativity and transcendental empty space, to break it down to the minimum. (time is not necessary, which is why Parmenides didn't need it. Not for Being. Time is only necessary for Logos, or Man. Parmenides didn't ask himself or didn't care who it was that was gazing on his sphere of oneness....)

You have nous on the one side (negativity) and space on the other (infinity). The two meet up top. Logos. And words are both continuous and digital. And actual numbers are continuous in the slightest degree else we could not represent and organize them. but because they are maximum abstractions, they function perfectly w/ one another. Because they are all the same exact number...1

I just figured out that pure subjectivity is a complete fiction. It's not conceivable w/o space. It's the same i from before. The subject is concept created from space by negativity. The personal pronoun as Wittgenstein knew is the limit of the world, transcendentally. I = -1. (i = square root of -1) which do you think is better here? i or I? i'm thinking i.
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:47 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134518 wrote:
God bless you for understanding! Thanks for that reference. I'll check it out. It's important to remember that I'm not disputing the existence of "infinite" forces in nature, but only our ability to digitize them. But perhaps you were just pointing me there for another reason..it does sound fascinating.


I was trying to distinguish between an infinite coordinate system and a lesser infinite coordinate system. A line could be 0 at one end and 1 at the other, but an infinite coordinate system cannot be described as having ends and is thus the greater infinity.

I think I've come to see this as not having much bearing on what you're trying to say, because you would be talking only about "one", not two different numbers like "one" and "zero". The example is still interesting nonetheless, albeit hard for even Wiki to explain.


Quote:
Not temporary, exactly, but temporal. It is temporary in the sense that Hegel's system embraces mortality. Spinoza thought he was talking of God. Hegel knew that the only God that man could know was himself, and that this God would die with him.

It's only because the Logos is temporal, that eternity is revealed in the first place. It takes time for man to abstract his transcendental nature from his incidental experience. Also, the logos itself must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos, in the full meaning of the word, including its relation to "God" & the transcendental...

I just started two threads about the Absolute (a synonym of Transcendental) concerning this sort o thing.


The logos must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos... I have no idea what you mean here, am I missing a metaphor? I would guess that you mean the exact sentence you wrote, but I do not know how logos would evolve self-consciousness?
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:54 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;134523 wrote:
I was trying to distinguish between an infinite coordinate system and a lesser infinite coordinate system. A line could be 0 at one end and 1 at the other, but an infinite coordinate system cannot be described as having ends and is thus the greater infinity.


Ok, I get you. That's actually pretty brilliant. I think it could be argued that it's not truly more infinite but it's the maximization of the infinity concept. Cantor spoke of transfinite numbers, but I think it all boils down to an inch. Don't get me wrong. I love this sort of thing. It's poetry.

Would you agree thought that there is a limitless number of numbers between any two numbers that are not the same number? If you agree to this, would you agree that the length of the spectrum is ultimately meaningless?

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 06:00 AM ----------

Scottydamion;134523 wrote:

The logos must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos... I have no idea what you mean here, am I missing a metaphor? I would guess that you mean the exact sentence you wrote, but I do not know how logos would evolve self-consciousness?


By means of abstraction.. Imagine how cave-men think of themselves. Or think of Christians who believe that Eternity is something in Heaven or Hell. Let me offer another term here. Hegel called a person's integrated system of concepts (their entire science as far as it is mental) the Concept.

Well, this Concept evolves itself. For instance, the scientific method is an invention. And negative theology (which is absolute brilliant, really) is an invention. History and Art criticism and novels and all these things that hold a mirror up to human nature. Freud and Jung, etc.

And for Hegel the best example would be the history of philosophy itself, which is dialectical or full of mistakes that are corrected in the arguments between philosophers.

1. Thesis: an idea that thinks its the truth.....

Antithesis: an idea that shows why the thesis in not the truth

Synthesis: an idea that takes the best from the thesis and anithesis and negates the rest.....creating a new thesis... back to step 1.

At some point there is no more antithesis, but this is only possible in transcendental philosophy.....which is why pragmatism is "truth" not Truth, and a smart pragmatist is aware of that. Rorty is a genius, but he's not transcendental.. because politics has no need for it. And natural science maybe only a little....

I got to sleep. Good chatting w/ you, A.
0 Replies
 
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:00 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134518 wrote:
Man, you are asking all the right questions. In a way, Yes, the minus sign is the absolute number, except that we cannot think pure negativity. So the absolute number is something like "i," which I will bet you are aware of as the imaginary number. And wouldn't you know it, it's both positive and negative (or neither) & it just happens to be the first person pronoun. Talk about luck!

The most we can do is to isolate pure negativity and pure being. Pure being is actually the same damn thing as transcendental space, for being is not conceivable as pure concept without both negativity and transcendental empty space, to break it down to the minimum. (time is not necessary, which is why Parmenides didn't need it. Not for Being. Time is only necessary for Logos, or Man. Parmenides didn't ask himself or didn't care who it was that was gazing on his sphere of oneness....)

You have nous on the one side (negativity) and space on the other (infinity). The two meet up top. Logos. And words are both continuous and digital. And actual numbers are continuous in the slightest degree else we could not represent and organize them. but because they are maximum abstractions, they function perfectly w/ one another. Because they are all the same exact number...1

I just figured out that pure subjectivity is a complete fiction. It's not conceivable w/o space. It's the same i from before. The subject is concept created from space by negativity. The personal pronoun as Wittgenstein knew is the limit of the world, transcendentally. I = -1. (i = square root of -1) which do you think is better here? i or I? i'm thinking i.


I think I get the first two paragraphs.

The only thing I would add to the third is that they are all relatively (linearly) the same number. 1=n*1. So: 1=30 => 1=30*1 (n=30).
When taken by themselves, each number represents the same thing as one, just using a different unit.

I'm not sure what you're saying about "pure subjectivity is a complete fiction". I mean, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:17 AM ----------

Reconstructo;134525 wrote:
Ok, I get you. That's actually pretty brilliant. I think it could be argued that it's not truly more infinite but it's the maximization of the infinity concept. Cantor spoke of transfinite numbers, but I think it all boils down to an inch. Don't get me wrong. I love this sort of thing. It's poetry.

Would you agree thought that there is a limitless number of numbers between any two numbers that are not the same number? If you agree to this, would you agree that the length of the spectrum is ultimately meaningless?


I can reason my way to agreeing with you, just not by using a line as an example. If the example said: 0 and 1 refer to ends of a curve segment on a circle, then I can agree by example that the length of the spectrum is ultimately meaningless.

Quote:
By means of abstraction.. Imagine how cave-men think of themselves. Or think of Christians who believe that Eternity is something in Heaven or Hell. Let me offer another term here. Hegel called a person's integrated system of concepts (their entire science as far as it is mental) the Concept.

Well, this Concept evolves itself. For instance, the scientific method is an invention. And negative theology (which is absolute brilliant, really) is an invention. History and Art criticism and novels and all these things that hold a mirror up to human nature. Freud and Jung, etc.

And for Hegel the best example would be the history of philosophy itself, which is dialectical or full of mistakes that are corrected in the arguments between philosophers.

1. Thesis: an idea that thinks its the truth.....

Antithesis: an idea that shows why the thesis in not the truth

Synthesis: an idea that takes the best from the thesis and anithesis and negates the rest.....creating a new thesis... back to step 1.

At some point there is no more antithesis, but this is only possible in transcendental philosophy.....which is why pragmatism is "truth" not Truth, and a smart pragmatist is aware of that. Rorty is a genius, but he's not transcendental.. because politics has no need for it. And natural science maybe only a little....

I got to sleep. Good chatting w/ you, A.


I'm probably going to remain stuck at the self-consciousness part, but I see what you mean by an evolving Concept.

"which is why pragmatism is 'truth'"

Yes it would seem so. I tend to think in pragmatic terms, and I start from the base up with a probabilistic framework. Certain paths to "truth" yield a higher probability of attaining a "truth" than others. It is somewhat like Plato's cave, but is focused on scopes instead of steps. The transcendent scope is completely out of the cave in the blinding light, and since it is blinding, I do not place a probability on metaphysical claims, I suspend judgment as best I can.

Yes, that is why I have said before that I think truth is found through discussion. Even if the only "truth" is that we cannot know any truths.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:49 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134409 wrote:
Think about this one.....(If you don't see that other connection, it's your problem now, not mine

.


You and Pythagoras (I mean the older one). He also believed that numbers were the bedrock (at it were). But you might try numerology, and eat no beans. (Pythagoras thought that beans were evil. "At no beans", he said. Again, I mean the older Pythagoras. For all I know, our Pythagoras may adore beans).

But of numbers being tautologies, I see not a hair. I think you made it up that Wittgenstein thought that. In fact, I am sure you made it up, since it does not mean anything. But it looks as if you have Scotty hooked on beans.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;134528 wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying about "pure subjectivity is a complete fiction". I mean, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

That's a tough thought. It's taken me years to sort it out. Kant speculated on a transcendental self, a source of consciousness. But what he didn't realize, unless I missed it, is that continuous spatial being and consciousness are the same damn thing....
It's only pure negativity that confuses us, as we can only think in objects...

So we assume that the self must be an object, but this is a digitization of transcendental space, which is continuous. Man is nothing but the junction of this transcendental space and pure negativity. There is no self, except for concepts that cannot be the true self. The best concept we can have of self is equivalent to my avatar, or at least it seems crystal clear to me that such is the case....

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 04:59 PM ----------

Scottydamion;134528 wrote:
I think I get the first two paragraphs.

The only thing I would add to the third is that they are all relatively (linearly) the same number. 1=n*1. So: 1=30 => 1=30*1 (n=30).
When taken by themselves, each number represents the same thing as one, just using a different unit.

I think you are right. I should be more clear. They are digitally speaking the exact same number but spatially various (the visual symbolization, and our conception of them as a continuum.) So to make the one number useful, we have to muddy it just a bit, but not in a way that impairs their functioning...Does this sound right?

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:02 PM ----------

Scottydamion;134528 wrote:

I'm probably going to remain stuck at the self-consciousness part, but I see what you mean by an evolving Concept.

I should have used this example last night.... This very conversation we are having is me communicating my self-consciousness of the Logos to you, but you must integrate my expressions into your personal system of concepts. Which I have no doubt you will accomplish, as you are sharp, brother. I've bumped into some close minded folks on here w/ this number realization..They think philosophy is common sense...

The self-consciousness of logos is just the abstraction of certain concepts to their maximum, and this reveals them in their "eternal" truth.. We are reducing our conceptions to lowest terms, in order to see their essence..

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:06 PM ----------

Scottydamion;134528 wrote:

"which is why pragmatism is 'truth'"

Yes it would seem so. I tend to think in pragmatic terms, and I start from the base up with a probabilistic framework. Certain paths to "truth" yield a higher probability of attaining a "truth" than others. It is somewhat like Plato's cave, but is focused on scopes instead of steps. The transcendent scope is completely out of the cave in the blinding light, and since it is blinding, I do not place a probability on metaphysical claims, I suspend judgment as best I can.

The scientific method is pragmatic. it's always open to revision. And this open-ness to revision is the quotes on "truth." It's not that "truth" is inferior to Truth. Actually, "truth" is far more necessary, and far predated Truth. Most live and die w/o Truth.

The word "metaphysics" is used in two ways. So many flakes & fakes have worn the word, that the word is blurred. It comes from Aristotle. He describes the foundations of his physics, if I understand correctly. (I haven't read much Aristotle, because he's boring. I read about him.)

In any case, the grounds of logic, language, and math, are metaphysical in the strictly rational sense. So metaphysics, understood correctly, is the pursuit of perfect truth, and the complete opposite of mysticism...But Plato is a good one to mention, as he comes as a mystic.. Kant and Hegel corrected this mysticism but synthesized what was good in Plato...

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:08 PM ----------

kennethamy;134538 wrote:
You and Pythagoras (I mean the older one). He also believed that numbers were the bedrock (at it were). But you might try numerology, and eat no beans. (Pythagoras thought that beans were evil. "At no beans", he said. Again, I mean the older Pythagoras. For all I know, our Pythagoras may adore beans).

Number are not the bedrock. Don't pretend to understand me. My avatar says it all. Figure it out...(The + is logos, word, man)(The bottom corners are the two transcendentals..)
longknowledge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134844 wrote:
The word "metaphysics" is used in two ways. So many flakes & fakes have worn the word, that the word is blurred. It comes from Aristotle. He describes the foundations of his physics, if I understand correctly. (I haven't read much Aristotle, because he's boring. I read about him.


Blurred indeed:

"Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics." - Wikipedia

:flowers:
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:35 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;134910 wrote:
Blurred indeed:

"Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics." - Wikipedia

:flowers:



I thought so. But look how suggestive that word is...it seems to tie in w/ what it became....
Quote:

Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
In epistemology, the prefix meta is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in psychology means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, "or somebody else's basic emotion[citation needed]."


Did the meaning rub off both ways?
longknowledge
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;135796 wrote:
I thought so. But look how suggestive that word is...it seems to tie in w/ what it became....


Did the meaning rub off both ways?

See my Metaphysics: The (Basic or Fundamental or General or Ultimate) Definition

and also:

Quotes on Metaphysics by Ortega y Gasset

:flowers:
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:22 am
@housby,
housby;121176 wrote:
Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.


the definition of reality is that which was before direct experience and/or senses , the Universe

ask yourself this

without the Universe could we , would we , exist in the first place ?

the answer is an unequivical NO

we need water , air and certain elements in order for us to become the form we have , Human
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/11/2024 at 11:59:41