A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I take the Heideggerian approach that "time" is co-extensive with "being". There are no "beings" except for ephemeral constructions by observers. There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers.

The ontological status of mathematical entities like numbers may be a separate issue because unless such numbers are used to model descriptions of an "agreed word" their status is merely a function of the agreed combinatorial operations which can be applied to them as abstractions. Paul Cohen's work on the continuum hypothesis may be of some ontological significance to your views about "infinity" in this matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

BTW I'm still waiting for your citation of "recent developments" I need to be aware of.

"I take the Heideggerian approach that "time" is co-extensive with "being"."
Therefore if true is the state of affairs in reality for time.

"There are no "beings" except for ephemeral constructions by observers."
Therefore if true is the state of affairs in reality as ephemeral constructions would be factual.

"There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers."
Therefore if true, that is, agreement in descriptions ocurring, then agreement by social peers is itself real and the ground of reality. They certainly can't delete that which they themselves agreed upon in the first place.

You see Fresco you merely point towards a collection of state of affairs based on perception in which perception itself co extensively with time are the constructing ground of reality, you don't deny it whatsoever ! Nothing changes in your Cosmogony except the fact you make a gratuitous assumption that does not only can't solve what it was set out to solve but raises more problems on the way, as for instance sheer will per se alone never prevented anything from happening, and I still will die against my will, and I can't grow wings just because I might imagine them, or focusing the case here I can't change your stubbornness no matter how much I wish it, and so on and so fourth.

As for the "new scientific paradigms" I spoke off earlier on, there is no mystery. What is it that you haven't heard yet or you don' t know regarding a reality that might well be a giant computer simulation ? Certainly you are familiar with plenty of top big names in Cosmogony, Science at large, and even in Philosophy, who are found of the idea, no big news there pal. You don't need to set out on long quest to get those names with some ease. Certainly you don't need to attribute the idea to myself...Perhaps its time for you to start learning something out of your circle of reference for a change, no ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You are presumably joking about "the giant computer simulation". That idea is at about the same level of the Aborigine's concept that they are "being dreamed". And that radically predates both "the Matrix" cult, or the spectacular failures of AI in recent years which given way to the rise of second generation cognitive science based on "embodiment theory". (See: Merleau-Ponty, Lakoff, Varela etc). Why not even go back to 17th century materialism which postulated that all could reduced to clockwork ! Very Happy

Now I see where what I call your "objective informatics" comes from. Well I wish you the best of luck given that "recent advances" concur that 99% of the operation of the universe is "unknown" to us. In truth (and I use that word reluctantly) it would appear that the more we learn, the more we realize there is to know. And that I assert can only be encompassed by continuous paradigmatic reconstruction.

I note that you have not responded to my points about the ontological status of mathematical entities, I would have thought that was pretty essential to your reliance on pseudo-mathematical substrates. I might have mentioned to you before that Lakoff (op cit) and Nunez attempt to explain mathematics in terms of "cognition as bodily functioning" (not without its opponents of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

"There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers."
Therefore if true, that is, agreement in descriptions ocurring, then agreement by social peers is itself real and the ground of reality. They certainly can't delete that which they themselves agreed upon in the first place.

I can see that it was realty by agreement that some people thought the earth was the center of the universe but was the earth the center of the universe truly reality?

Quote:

Therefore if true, that is, agreement in descriptions ocurring, then agreement by social peers is itself real and the ground of reality. They certainly can't delete that which they themselves agreed upon in the first place.

This does seem correct to me but is it because of an agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning logic please...can you distinguish between me going along with his assertions so I can logically refute them later on ? Have you heard of rhetoric ?
I merely pointed out EVEN IF what he claims is true was true, there still was no change whatsoever to the structure of reality, as indeed what is, is...there is no way around it...
...you see Fresco simulates a pseudo circumvention of "is-ness" through a melodramatic speech supported by nothing but thin air...Fresco discourse is full of is-ness everywhere you look at...
I find it amusing he now turns to mathematical entities and embodied cognition as functions from where so he claims maths emerges...its beyond words...things don't build structure things ARE structure !
Is mathematics any less mathematical because its objects are described in the shape of phenomena ? What is it about phenomena which is more palpable then mathematics ? Who is now defending some crude old faction form of primeval materialism ? I can't help but smile...

2 Replies

There is no mystery that from structured things more structure emerges, it ads up ! Critical mass, its called critical mass.
I hate it when pseudo intellectuals want to make a name for themselves out from a bag of old tricks...

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

RL
What Fil doesn't get is that I am arguing that the word "reality" only has meaning in cases of disagreement. To argue otherwise like Frank does is, exactly equivalent to advocating an unobtainable absolutist hypothetical principle like "God". Scientists wisely avoid the word "reality". They talk about "evidence for what may be the case" and they are conscious of the need for overall coherence (co-construction) of the paradigms in which that "case" makes sense. But scientific paradigms are social phenomena subject to revolutionary change. They parochially define what doing "legitimate science" science is about, and the influence funding decisions. They are subservient to the human pre-occupation with prediction and control of what we thing as "the universe" ( or in recent times "multiverses").

1 Reply

@fresco,

No, you are talking about the problem of knowledge no one here has contention with that ! Scientists avoid to state what is the ultimate state of facts because they know knowledge can be tricky...nonetheless they say nothing regarding reality being a human construction...unless of course you confuse "social scientists" with physicists...they wouldn't like it rest assured, in their view you people are like middle age witches.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

(it should read old fashioned not damned "faction", apologies my reply was written at 4 am)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You may have a point about what "respectable" scientists will say or not say. But we should also bear in mind that established quantum physicists like Pauli were tempted to describe QM as "lucid mysticism". Considerations of "observer involvement in waveform collapse" and weird issues about "whatever can happen, does happen " no doubt contribute to this choice of language by those whose reputation is not at stake.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Let me remind you that in physicists coinage detectors are observers not people...this is a very common mistake amateurs make regarding the terming "observer". Furthermore there are alternative views regarding the wave function collapse check pilots waves explanation in which there is a wave guiding the particle odd behaviour. Not saying this hypothesis in specific is the correct one but it certainly is interesting and it should be pursued for further investigation.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No, you are talking about the problem of knowledge no one here has contention with that ! Scientists avoid to state what is the ultimate state of facts because they know knowledge can be tricky...nonetheless they say nothing regarding reality being a human construction...unless of course you confuse "social scientists" with physicists...they wouldn't like it rest assured, in their view you people are like middle age witches.

Actually, Fil...I think Fresco's problem (and RL's also)...is that they truly will not see the distinction between REALITY...and human ability to understand or describe it.

They actually are talking about "human abilities to understand and describe REALITY"...but they keep using the word "reality."

No getting through to them...and I am sure they are certain the problem lies in the fact that they are so much more intelligent and insightful than others.

Hey...whatever helps get them past their personal problems.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

While making such comments, you should keep in mind, in the wider terms of Kierkegaard:

- The only reality to which an existing individual may have a relation that is more than cognitive, is his own reality.

2 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

While making such comments, you should keep in mind, in the wider terms of Kierkegaard:

- The only reality to which an existing individual may have a relation that is more than cognitive, is his own reality.

Not sure of your point here,Timur.

If the point is that understanding (as best it can be) or describing REALITY...is a purely subjective endeavor (guessing game, I would say)...I agree completely.

But if you (Kierkegaard is not here) are saying that each of us has an individual reality...then of course, that would be the Ultimate REALITY.

The problem I have with the notion, however, is that it seems once again people taking that particular line are confusing "human understanding of and descriptions of" REALITY...with REALITY.

I KNOW I do not understand the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I KNOW that my abilities to describe IT are totally deficient.
and inadequate...OTHER THAN...whatever actually IS...IS what IS.

The Ultimate REALITY IS whatever happens actually to be the case.

So...I am not sure what point you are making with Kierkegaard's thought there.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not sure of your point here,Timur.

My point is that you cannot know reality.

You keep saying that reality is what is.

In which you infer that you know reality, know what is, know ding an sich.

You know it no more than fresco and others..

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

Quote:
Not sure of your point here,Timur.

My point is that you cannot know reality.

You keep saying that reality is what is.

In which you infer that you know reality, know what is, know ding an sich.

You know it no more than fresco and others..

I KNOW that I do not KNOW what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is.

But I most assuredly can KNOW that whatever IS...IS.

There is no inference that I KNOW what the REALITY is...but whatever it IS...that IS what it IS.

It simply cannot be any other way.

If you can construct a hypothetical scenario wherein that does not hold...please share it and we can discuss it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way...I would not feel comfortable saying, "you cannot know reality."

I have no idea of whether you can or cannot know reality.

I know that I do not know reality.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can imagine plenty of scenarios (ii?) where reality is not what is.

I can even see on A2K, scenarios that are not your reality. What is, is most certainly not.

What's the point of enunciating such scenarios if the result is your persisting with "what is, is"?

What is, is what it seems instead, in first approach..

3 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

While making such comments, you should keep in mind, in the wider terms of Kierkegaard:

- The only reality to which an existing individual may have a relation that is more than cognitive, is his own reality.

It seams you can't even get the point it changes nothing ! It just brings reality into a collection, a sum of individual experiences like the Multiverse is a collection of universes.
Referring to phenomena wont change experiencing the only measurement of phenomena to non being...

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

I can imagine plenty of scenarios (ii?) where reality is not what is.

I can even see on A2K, scenarios that are not your reality. What is, is most certainly not.

What's the point of enunciating such scenarios if the result is your persisting with "what is, is"?

What is, is what it seems instead, in first approach..

hahaha....only craspy daisy !!!
And what are the scenarios in which reality is not what it is, eh ? Are you retarded drunk or what ?

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

I can imagine plenty of scenarios (ii?) where reality is not what is.

Okay...share one.

Quote:

I can even see on A2K, scenarios that are not your reality. What is, is most certainly not.

Not sure what you mean by my reality. In any case...I am asking about REALITY.

Quote:

What's the point of enunciating such scenarios if the result is your persisting with "what is, is"?

If you can come up with one scenario where what IS...actually is not...you will defeat my argument completely. That seems to be a fairly decent "point."

Can you do it.

Quote:

What is, is what it seems instead, in first approach..

I have no idea of what you were trying to say here.

1 Reply

A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know