DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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...

Again: this has nothing to do with the "thing in itself" of Kant. Do you want me to repeat it again?

Have you noticed that the only answer you can always give me is changing the subject? (Sorry, I forgot you sometimes laugh loud instead.)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Unless of course your pathetic presence in this thread...

Since you mentioned it, the only pathetic presence here is yours, which have the sole purpose of making enough noise to prevent any useful discussion. (You don't even know how to write.) Whenever one presents an argument you cannot answer to you simply start talking about something else and pretend you didn't notice. What a disgrace! At the moment, I am asking myself:

1) Is all people here like you? (I know they're not.)
2) Where do people like you come from?

What disturbs me the most is that nobody seems to care if someone like you floods the thread with noise. They simply don't seem to care.

Another thing that occurred me: perhaps you are an automated software programmed to produce noise in order to combat original ideas...

0 Replies

@guigus,

...prove it don´t claim it !

The "thing in itself" addresses the transcendental problematic on not knowing what is the ultimate reality of things, what is the ultimate reality of objects as they really are beyond our constructs and our relation with them...that is to say can or can we not describe them for what they are as they are ?
Of course Kant at that time did n´t addressed the problem of functions as objects are dynamically the product of their relations and not really passive entity´s...

The modern way of placing the problem of "things in themselves" can be summarized in information theory on how a system can describe a sub system and on how a sub system cannot ever describe a bigger system due to entropy increasing...

..."ignoramus" as you are obviously you have nor the mind nor any clue on how all these things are inter related nor do you have any idea how many of the supposed old solved problems are still very much upon the table and open for debate !

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...but guess what you are going straight to my ignore list, problem solved, enough is enough...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

In Rigour only a final set of all sets if it is the case that such set can exist could be truly considered a thing in itself since no other sub set would ever be able to describe it...of course in more relative loose terms we could apply the principle or the underlying idea to any system that is bigger then our present capacity to compute it...

For instance it is loosely fairly correct to reason that the weather as a system is a "thing in itself" in the sense that we have no access to a correct full description on its behaviour...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...more, in a modern defence of Kant one can equally argue and reason that the description of a system by any bigger system although able to compute it and to fully describe it its not equal to the "thing in itself" in such system once larger and thus differently more algorithmic complex...metaphorically its "upper layer language level" can make predictions upon such sub system but evidently as a more extensive transcription its comprehension ends up being meta functional beyond the scope of the system it describes and thus not truly intimate with it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

..."ignoramus" as you are obviously you have nor the mind nor any clue on how all these things are inter related nor do you have any idea how many of the supposed old solved problems are still very much upon the table and open for debate !

What a surprising statement coming from you.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...but guess what you are going straight to my ignore list, problem solved, enough is enough...

I hope you could ignore me...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

In Rigour only a final set of all sets if it is the case that such set can exist could be truly considered a thing in itself since no other sub set would ever be able to describe it...of course in more relative loose terms we could apply the principle or the underlying idea to any system that is bigger then our present capacity to compute it...

For instance it is loosely fairly correct to reason that the weather as a system is a "thing in itself" in the sense that we have no access to a correct full description on its behaviour...

Just curious: how the set of all sets not containing themselves relates to the "thing in itself"?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Above the use of the expression "its not equal" it is obscure and needs clarification...what was meant above, was that in a system computing a sub system its segmented apprehended info string from the higher to the lower its not functionally equal...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Above the use of the expression "its not equal" it is obscure and needs clarification...what was meant above, was that in a system computing a sub system its segmented apprehended info string from the higher to the lower its not functionally equal...

Well, that changes everything!

0 Replies

Hi Guys!

Where are with this then? Have any of you finally realised that the OP is correct..... or not?

Smile

4 Replies

@mark noble,

Hi Mark !

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Guys!

Where are with this then? Have any of you finally realised that the OP is correct..... or not?

What is OP?

Never mind.

2 Replies

@guigus,

in military speak, OP stands for observation post.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi Guys!

Where are with this then? Have any of you finally realised that the OP is correct..... or not?

What is OP?

Never mind.

It just means 'opening post'. I'm sure you knew that anyway... Smile

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Guys!

Where are with this then? Have any of you finally realised that the OP is correct..... or not?

I’d say the ‘OP’ could be ambiguous e.g. if the subject is ‘nothing’ does it exist or if the subject is inferred i.e. phenomena, are phenomena not existent? Could you clarify?

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Guys!

Where are (you) with this then? Have any of you finally realised that the OP is correct..... or not?

Also, how could I know the ‘OP’ is correct if it’s a question? Wouldn’t it have to be in the form of an answer for me to be able to say whether it was correct or not?

Semantics is in the list attached to your topic. This post and the last one have this in mind.

1 Reply

@igm,

I think of the question posed by the OP as meaningless rather than "true" or "false". As it is phrased--Does nothing exist?--it makes no sense to me.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I think of the question posed by the OP as meaningless rather than "true" or "false". As it is phrased--Does nothing exist?--it makes no sense to me.

Yes, there's plenty of ambiguity in that OP! Confused

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know