Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Don't you think that the larger prize gets lost in all your mountains of minutia???

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

So for you it is perfectly possible that you actually exist without your existence at the same time being possible? That is, if your existence was possible but no longer is you still exist? Or, if your existence is not yet possible you already exist?

I have already said that X exists entails (possible) X exists, since (necessarily) actuality entail possibility. But there are no times involved.

"X exists entails X exists" has a different meaning than "X actually exists entails X possibly exists." And of course for symbolic logic there are not times involved since, as you already pointed out, in symbolic logic there is no time. It is like locking yourself in a room while ignoring everything outside of that room, then saying the world is only the content of that room.

kennethamy wrote:

Do you think that if something is a triangle it is "at the same time" trilateral?

Sure it is, and you can easily confirm that: just imagine a closed two-dimensional figure that has three angles. Then ask yourself if it has three sides. Once you notice it has, ask yourself if it must have three sides. To answer that last question, you must remember the two-dimensional figure that has three angles and ask yourself if it would be possible that it had a different number of sides than three (which is called contrafactual definiteness - the very concept of necessity depends on it). A question you can only answer to by realizing that without its three sides a triangle ceases to exist: it must keep its three sides to remain a triangle. So there are not only times involved: they are all over the place - that same "logic" place you repute as atemporal.

kennethamy wrote:

If you mean by "same time" what it means in that sentence, then sure. But "same time" is there just a figure of speech.

This is really funny. So tell me: what such a "figure of speech" is talking about? Let me clue you in: it is talking about an actuality and its necessary possibility being simultaneous (a figure of speech that can only talk about its own rigorous meaning is no longer a figure of speech).

kennethamy wrote:

There is no time in logic. Logic is a-temporal.

What you name "logic" is just an unilateral take on logic that, precisely for denying time, is utterly mistaken.

Fido wrote:

Don't you think that the larger prize gets lost in all your mountains of minutia???

The devil is in the details.

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Don't you think that the larger prize gets lost in all your mountains of minutia???

The devil is in the details.

So is Waldo; but that is just an excuse... Cut the Gordian Knot... Go for the heart of the matter... That is the first intention.

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

So for you it is perfectly possible that you actually exist without your existence at the same time being possible? That is, if your existence was possible but no longer is you still exist? Or, if your existence is not yet possible you already exist?

I have already said that X exists entails (possible) X exists, since (necessarily) actuality entail possibility. But there are no times involved.

"X exists entails X exists" has a different meaning than "X actually exists entails X possibly exists." And of course for symbolic logic there are not times involved since, as you already pointed out, in symbolic logic there is no time. It is like locking yourself in a room while ignoring everything outside of that room, then saying the world is only the content of that room.

kennethamy wrote:

Do you think that if something is a triangle it is "at the same time" trilateral?

Sure it is, and you can easily confirm that: just imagine a closed two-dimensional figure that has three angles. Then ask yourself if it has three sides. Once you notice it has, ask yourself if it must have three sides. To answer that last question, you must remember the two-dimensional figure that has three angles and ask yourself if it would be possible that it had a different number of sides than three (which is called contrafactual definiteness - the very concept of necessity depends on it). A question you can only answer to by realizing that without its three sides a triangle ceases to exist: it must keep its three sides to remain a triangle. So there are not only times involved: they are all over the place - that same "logic" place you repute as atemporal.

kennethamy wrote:

If you mean by "same time" what it means in that sentence, then sure. But "same time" is there just a figure of speech.

This is really funny. So tell me: what such a "figure of speech" is talking about? Let me clue you in: it is talking about an actuality and its necessary possibility being simultaneous (a figure of speech that can only talk about its own rigorous meaning is no longer a figure of speech).

kennethamy wrote:

There is no time in logic. Logic is a-temporal.

What you name "logic" is just an unilateral take on logic that, precisely for denying time, is utterly mistaken.

So, you think that at the same moment something "becomes" a triangle, it also becomes a tri-lateral figure? Would you say that it was, at least, instantaneous? Or as fast as greased lightening?

Fido, You don't exist either, so what's your point?

Try to see through it all folks... Your triangle is hypothetical upon which you reason hypothetically... And your existence is hypothetical upon which you reason hypothetically.... There is not one thing proven about any form, or proved by forms for that matter...

If the conclusions one reaches "work" in regard to reality, then, I guess, all the better...

But you folks have got to quit talking as though geometric figures are real figures...

They are each the result of reason; so their value in resoning is limited...

Sure: Ask a question about a triangle... Do not forget that triangles do not exist in reality, and that for any given three points, like mountain peaks or stars that we provide the lines and angles, even the presumption of a point... It does not matter how much reason tries to polish reality to perfection because reality is always what it is, and never perfect...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Try to see through it all folks... Your triangle is hypothetical upon which you reason hypothetically... And your existence is hypothetical upon which you reason hypothetically.... There is not one thing proven about any form, or proved by forms for that matter...

A hypothesis that is forever condemned to be a hypothesis is no longer a hypothesis, which must possibly become an accepted fact. It is like saying the world has only a left side.

First; what??? And second; the world obviously has two sides...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

If the conclusions one reaches "work" in regard to reality, then, I guess, all the better...

And yours don't.

More than a few of my Ideas have worked... I made a jack the other day out of a few pieces of Iron, a plate and pipe and using a comalong, I jacked a four hundred pound beam into a place where there was no possibility of hoisting it, so speak for yourself... I understand reality and you well enough...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

But you folks have got to quit talking as though geometric figures are real figures...

Read my posts and you will see I point out more than once that a triangle is not an external object. Let alone a pure idea.

Perhaps not a pure Idea, but no object at all, but a concept and one based upon number which is a pure concept of sorts... It was for that reason that the pythagoreans thought number and math were the true reality and reality was only a concept...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

They are each the result of reason; so their value in resoning is limited...

How does the limited value of the results of reason themselves result from their being a result of reason? And reason itself, from what does it result? Or is reason the origin of the world?

It is because every logical conclusion can be traced like a chain from cause and effect, but you cannot push a string ...Only in the most simple sense can reason tell what will happen next, and usually only in a controled experiment

Quote:

Fido wrote:

Sure: Ask a question about a triangle... Do not forget that triangles do not exist in reality, and that for any given three points, like mountain peaks or stars that we provide the lines and angles, even the presumption of a point... It does not matter how much reason tries to polish reality to perfection because reality is always what it is, and never perfect...

It is you to see a perfection attempt in a triangle: triangles were created to build things - they were used in Egypt to build monuments, including the Pyramids - and although whatever they were used to build could have an intent of perfection, the triangles used in building it - as intellectual tools - did not. The attempt "to polish reality to perfection" goes on your account.

Funny; I would say that triangles are used to measure things...

Triangles are not created except when built, but reality offers no perfect example of triangles...

I would say it is because points are as difficult to come by as straight lines...

We look at the sky and see points of light, and we can triangulate them; but our points are as big or bigger than our own sun...

As with all things, vision is flawed...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Funny; I would say that triangles are used to measure things...

I am glad I was able to change your mind about triangles being an attempt "to polish reality to perfection," despite knowing you will never admit you have changed your mind, being that funny or not.

There are no straight lines in reality nor points.... We see reality and add the perfection in our forms, and that is why people should not confuse one with the other...

Fido wrote:

Triangles are not created except when built, but reality offers no perfect example of triangles...

Quote:

If reality cannot offer an example (a perfect one) of a triangle, then what do you mean by "triangles are not created except when built"? If you stop an instant to think about what you have just said, you will see that you have touched on the true nature of the problem: a triangle is both an ideal construct and a concrete object - it is a way of representing a concrete object in which we clearly see the features of the object (material, three-dimensional) as different from the features of its representation (immaterial, two-dimensional), as well as how each one of them cannot exist in the same way (a triangular object) without the other. The source of all confusion is that, in a certain way, they are indeed the same, despite remaining essentially different.

We alway use our forms to recreate reality in a fashion we find more desireable or useful... Our forms are not perfect, and they do not reflect reality, and cannot be used to creat perfection... Can we "make" a triangle? Certainly, but the lines will not be straight nor the points constant,,, It is only in the ideal that things do not change...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

I would say it is because points are as difficult to come by as straight lines...

Not quite. A child can understand what points and lines are - the dual nature of truth would rather be an example of something difficult to come by, at least for some.

We look at the sky and see points of light, and we can triangulate them; but our points are as big or bigger than our own sun...

As with all things, vision is flawed...

Fido wrote:

Triangles are not created except when built, but reality offers no perfect example of triangles...

Fido wrote:

Quote:

Fido wrote:

Triangles are not created except when built, but reality offers no perfect example of triangles...

Since your reality differs from the majority of living humans, most people's definition of a triangle "is" our reality.

What is your definition of the pyramids of Egypt?

Quote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Funny; I would say that triangles are used to measure things...

I am glad I was able to change your mind about triangles being an attempt "to polish reality to perfection," despite knowing you will never admit you have changed your mind, being that funny or not.

There are no straight lines in reality nor points.... We see reality and add the perfection in our forms, and that is why people should not confuse one with the other...

Fido wrote:

Triangles are not created except when built, but reality offers no perfect example of triangles...

Quote:

If reality cannot offer an example (a perfect one) of a triangle, then what do you mean by "triangles are not created except when built"? If you stop an instant to think about what you have just said, you will see that you have touched on the true nature of the problem: a triangle is both an ideal construct and a concrete object - it is a way of representing a concrete object in which we clearly see the features of the object (material, three-dimensional) as different from the features of its representation (immaterial, two-dimensional), as well as how each one of them cannot exist in the same way (a triangular object) without the other. The source of all confusion is that, in a certain way, they are indeed the same, despite remaining essentially different.

We alway use our forms to recreate reality in a fashion we find more desireable or useful... Our forms are not perfect, and they do not reflect reality, and cannot be used to creat perfection... Can we "make" a triangle? Certainly, but the lines will not be straight nor the points constant,,, It is only in the ideal that things do not change...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

I would say it is because points are as difficult to come by as straight lines...

Not quite. A child can understand what points and lines are - the dual nature of truth would rather be an example of something difficult to come by, at least for some.

But show me one... They are all supposed to be straight and are not... Even plumb lines are not straight...Light does not travel straight and the path of a beam of light should be ourr model for a straight line.

Quote:

Fido wrote:

We look at the sky and see points of light, and we can triangulate them; but our points are as big or bigger than our own sun...

Which does not invalidate stars triangulation, since it does not depend on stars being themselves just points - quite the opposite: starts triangulation would be useless if stars were themselves the same points with which we triangulate them.

Validation is entirely another question from the process by which we conceive of reality which is our understanding... For example; if you see in the stars only points of light then fine, but it is you who conceive of three points creating a triangle, and you who draws in the lines and you who measure their angles, sines and cosines, and then use them in the measure of other triangles that you abstract from your perception of points... It is all abstraction, even the points- when knowing those points are as infinite points all huddled about a common center... Your question of validity should really be one of utility... Does Geometry work even while it does not grow out of truth or result in truth??? In fact, as it occured in the structures I built imperfectly from imperfect understanding and imperfect Materials; we said: We are not building a watch, they will never see it from the road, and that is close enough for the girls I go with...

Perfection is a matter of form, and not of reality... Geometry must work since all of our structures are built out of geometric understanding...But, it was a mistake for Descartes to try to apply the reasoning of geometry to all of philosophy, when it does not work absolutely even in the physical world...

Quote:

Fido wrote:

As with all things, vision is flawed...

Would "all things" include your concepts?

guigus wrote:

If reality cannot offer an example (a perfect one) of a triangle, then what do you mean by "triangles are not created except when built"? If you stop an instant to think about what you have just said, you will see that you have touched on the true nature of the problem: a triangle is both an ideal construct and a concrete object - it is a way of representing a concrete object in which we clearly see the features of the object (material, three-dimensional) as different from the features of its representation (immaterial, two-dimensional), as well as how each one of them cannot exist in the same way (a triangular object) without the other. The source of all confusion is that, in a certain way, they are indeed the same, despite remaining essentially different.

We always use our forms to recreate reality in a fashion we find more desireable or useful... Our forms are not perfect, and they do not reflect reality, and cannot be used to create perfection... Can we "make" a triangle? Certainly, but the lines will not be straight nor the points constant... It is only in the ideal that things do not change...

Pyramids are a five sided object with a square base and triangular sides, but squarish does not make square, and triangular does not make a triangle...

Do not forget that triangles do not exist in reality, and that for any given three points, like mountain peaks or stars that we provide the lines and angles, even the presumption of a point... It does not matter how much reason tries to polish reality to perfection because reality is always what it is, and never perfect...