DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Fil Albuquerque,

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

By "raw" data I was referring to something like "brute facts", phenomena presumed to be pristine and unrelated to any system of presuppositions. I don't think that happens. The closest I've ever come to "raw" experience--especially in the context of research--is when meditating, wherein one experiences images, feelings and thoughts (all forms of sensation) PREREFLECTIVELY, at least as much as possible.
My limited understanding or use of "function" refers to the contributions an institution makes to the persistence of a social system of which it is an aspect. or of the survival of its members. Functions are more like effects than causes.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

off topic, i know, but, how do i meditate?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Functions are more like effects than causes.

From which frame of reference do you assert that ? Because obviously depending on the frame of reference they can be both.
Functions are effects granted but effects that build up causes in a complexity chain...those effects, are themselves as phenomena, the next form, the next "language", in the causal continuum which will give rise to the new effects much probably in a perpetual circular loop...

Actually if one wants to look at functions as resulting operating forms between two agents (also functions at a lower level) one immediately can understand how these new forms born out of the path, out the "tao" bring about in their existence, in their extension, (after all as forms they have size thus extension and can be measured) the nature to be considered new agents of cause...

...the question rather is since we don´t have any true comparison between these and "raw data" how can we assume that they are less true or that they don´t report any kind of truth in themselves only because they apply in relative relational contexts ?...what is there as alternative to state that these are the fake ones ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...WHAT IS TRUTH SUPPOSE TO BE IF NOT WHAT IT IS ?
all phenomena in such light are therefore "raw data"...their epiphenomenal relational status does n´t prevented them to be interpreted as "raw data", and just maybe the "raw data" in them is due precisely because of their holistic multi relational self justifiable potential...after all there is a reason why patterns tend to repeat themselves...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The best metaphor that I can think of to quickly describe what a function is comes to me in two words :
a DYNAMIC FORM..

...but these are two words that actually summarize on a deeper level of awareness the whole of reality that we can report off...after all even the "solid" atoms of our world are giggling and moving everywhere...and yet mind that the constancy of the patterns that we so often recognize in them is the only instrument that we have to establish the constancy of Laws or what is to be and to mean truth...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

In such light Truth is not only born out of relations, truth is/are in the relations themselves !
(Taoism understands this !)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Are you TRYING to be obscure?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

That comes as a rather obscure counter to whatever argument I might have propose...if you only would be so kind to clarify what is it that I am trying to be so obscure about, maybe I will be able to clarify it to your satisfaction or need...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

How obscure. If I knew what you were trying to be obscure about it would be because you were not so effective in your obscurantism. No more please. I don't have time or energy for this BS.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

...that is the most obscure conclusion upon whatever you think I have been stating or defending since you seem to believe there is some obscurity although you cannot quite point where to...so I suppose you think you can make a case precisely by not making it...how illogical do you think that is ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You're right there. I should have made it clear that I was referring to your general approach, not any particular point. I don't take your obscurantism personally because you do it virtually all the time with everyone. You are bright, I'm happy to report, but a real bore, I'm unhappy to report. I hope you clean up your act, for YOUR sake. This is my last response to you.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Have a nice day to JL ! Wink

0 Replies

@shanemcd3,

shanemcd3 wrote:

If physics can help explain something in philosophy then there is no reason not to use it, in fact i think this is where philosophy has often gone wrong, by trying to remain so pure. And yes, hawking radiation is an intriguing subject, perhaps the information is conserved, perhaps not in this universe, but in the multiverse, maybe it is ejected into a sister universe via a white hole. But back on the subject of nothing, what about beyond the universe, or is it even logical to ask this? Or before the big bang? Are there still quantum fluctuations? Or any laws? If not, how did they come to be? Eternity is an intriguing thought, but so too is something from nothing

Do you want physics to help philosophy? Then just let it happen: absolute nothingness is inaccessible to us, just like absolute being---this is how physics can help philosophy. Only then philosophy can be rigorous, while taking into account what physics really has to offer it: physically speaking, absolute being and absolute nothingness are the same, inaccessible experience. Denying this is turning both philosophy and physics into delusional speculation.

0 Replies

this reminds me of "the-thing-in-itself" that we can never know

2 Replies

@shanemcd3,

I understand the need for such comparison but it is not the same...
...eventually if you consider a set of all sets, and you place yourself as a subset somewhere along the chain of those sets up to the final set you can quite well understand that no sub set could ever describe a final set just as any smaller set cannot describe a bigger set...any bigger set is in fact a "thing in itself" from the point of view of any smaller sub set...in fact you don´t even need to get to a final set of all sets to get to such conclusion...
...reasonable enough to conclude that the problem of nothingness is far more silly then the problem of the thing in itself...

1 Reply

@shanemcd3,

shanemcd3 wrote:

this reminds me of "the-thing-in-itself" that we can never know

In fact Kant was partially correct: we cannot know being (or nothingness, which is the same) "in itself" (fortunately): each time we approach being it becomes nothingness, and reciprocally: each one escapes us in the form of the other. However, he was wrong in the sense that we can understand being and nothingness rationally and model how they relate.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I understand the need for such comparison but it is not the same...
...eventually if you consider a set of all sets, and you place yourself as a subset somewhere along the chain of those sets up to the final set you can quite well understand that no sub set could ever describe a final set just as any smaller set cannot describe a bigger set...any bigger set is in fact a "thing in itself" from the point of view of any smaller sub set...in fact you don´t even need to get to a final set of all sets to get to such conclusion...
...reasonable enough to conclude that the problem of nothingness is far more silly then the problem of the thing in itself...

It is you that are silly.

And your explanation has no resemblance to the "thing in itself" of Kant. Go read Kant before talking about concepts you know nothing about. And Hegel, by the way.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Unless of course your pathetic presence in this thread can actually present an argument in which a sub set can describe a bigger set your babbling ad hominem and your straw man fallacy´s wont take you out of that poor mindless mud hole on which you dwell so sadly... Mr. Green

Obviously if you ever understood kant´s thing in itself you would n´t just have said the nonsensical idiocy that you just did...
...you are so hopelessly dumb that you did n´t yet wonder why is it that no one around addresses your posts any more aside me and my idealistic attempt to make something out of you...

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know