My tools and justification, the fundamentals of my reasoning.

Forums: Philosophy, Reasoning
Email this Topic • Print this Page

So I decided to informally summarize some of my essential guide lines that justify the set of beliefs some of you guys have been reading from me since long ago in the hopes at least you find a frame of reference for my obscure quasi mystical world view. Lets go ahead with my tools and central frames of reference that guide my thought process on the nature of Reality.

1 - Parmenides on Being. That wich is cannot change. That which is not cannot come. Motion must be false.

2 - Occam Razor. Looking for the simplest, most energy efficient explanation is mandatory, no matter how absurd it pushes you forward.

3 - Godel's Incompleteness. A formal system cannot be justified from within. This is top central for accepting there is good reason to admit a metaphysical problem.

4 - Paradoxes with Infinity. Doing away with the idea of infinite diversity of information. A system may not stop if it is self enclosed, it stkll is finite if no new information is present.

5 - The problem of substance, materialism cannot be justified from within our frame of reference. Remenber Godel. Concept of virtual machines within virtual machines. Apply to Godel incompletness problem to circjnvent lack of foundation. Again use Occam razor and reduce infinite sequence of systems within systems into a loop of two that justify one another circularly, in accordance with Godel requirements.

6 - Solving Parmenides challenge by addressing the problem of motion by reducing it to one single thing that moves instead of everything moving, again Occam, and by reducing motion to a "reader system" with a finite set of states, so to avoid infinity.

7 - Having always present in our thought process the trap of nothingness as a tricky concept without rational justification. It is sel refuting. This reverts back to the Parmenides frame of thought. Whatever exits in Being cannot expand itself, or grow towards nothingndss as if noghingness could work as a place holder for expansion and emergence of new properties. This is problematic and at the base level fracks up the idea of Evolution. Evolution here is reduced to order of information within a system.Time is not a fundamental property of reality.

PS - I am doing this from a mobil in a coffe shop. Further reviews and posting will follow as need will and patience comes along. My appologies in advance for chunking all this together informally with spit n tape. I am lazy and don't want to post a bibble. Thanks for stoping by you all and keep having a nice day evening wherevef you are.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,214 • Replies: 22

No top replies

Right now I am enjoying this video half way through, lets see were it goes.
Because so much of what is here is central in my thought process I leave it here as an accessory.

0 Replies

Too complex for me. I just ask myself, What would Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck do?

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

For starters they would see the video that I posted before posting...
...love both Daffy duck n Bugs bunny...

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I don't know about me, I am to messy explaining myself specially in a foreign language and through written form instead of oral form. I prefer direct oral confrontation of ideas as I don't lose track of my train of thought as easily. But to the point, while I can't speak on my behave, I would say Parmenides is not to complex, quite the opposite, he is as simple and as clear as water and that's what makes it hard for some people. One thing is certain, my notion of Being, of Rationality as prior to reasoners, my notion of completeness, my requirement of finitude, they all match Parmenides account of ultimate Reality.

...so the question emerges, is it to complex Edgar or is it perhaps possible you just don't care enough ? Wouldn't that be a much more fair statement, recognizing or admitting that you don't care enough about the matter.
Hard meals are not for every stomach and certainly not for everyday occasions. You risk insanity...

0 Replies

My take on Godel Incompleteness is this:

1 - A self referential system is undecidable but finite in regards to its information size. By finite I mean true. It is incomplete because the information size ABOUT itself cannot be equal TO itself even if just made of information.
In the simple version of it, you cannot fit a box of equal size inside one another.
Knowledge about something is always smaller then X something.

It states something we all know when we speak about the distinction between Ontology and Epistemology. Being can have knowledge but its not just knowledge. This refutes of course Consciousness is of primary order, because you must have consciousness about something which is not just consciousness, A informs nothing to A itself...it rather states the opposite, Existence must be of primary order and thus epistemologically unjustifiable.

It seems to say something rather exquisite about the nature of Reality... Something which as a whole is TRUE cannot inform itself COMPLETELY about its nature. It EXISTS, period.

0 Replies

I'm with Edgar and Daffy.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

Well I am publically trying which is more then most are willing to pay. I expose myself hoping trading of opinion is fruitfull. That means at least one thing, I care more then the vast majority of you.

Moreover someone who is not willing to expose himself to ridicule IS ridicule ! One thing is certain, nobody can acuse me of hiding myself. I am an open book for better n for worse. Not afraid of the social judgmental boogyman.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Good on you, filly, but just be careful you don't disappear up somewhere in the process.

Think : Safety First.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

Atheits should be happy by now if they can read..."I" am not here.
Safety be damned.

0 Replies

My wife description of my thinking made me laugh n pause. On her own words I was like the kiddo who robbed the Porsche to his father and learn how to drive it alone...she says robbing the Porsche was natural and meant to be...she also expects that the kiddo in me never dies. I wont debate her on that...far to lucky she looked at me twice. When I insist I am just a nosy amateur she retorts how could you not be, you do it for love not for money, you don't have an agenda. That much is true I speak my mind for better n for worse as it comes...
Anyway I think women in love are far to gracious...she is willing to be stupid along with me...the point is, we never get to deserve them fully.

0 Replies

I was just smoking a cigarette at the back door step in my kitchen and thinking about Cantor and bigger n smaller infinities and the diagonal argument between real numbers and natural numbers and thinking Cantor can't be right. There can't be bigger infinities it just doesn't make any sense. (Infinity alone doesn't make sense go figure infinities bigger then others...)
....and I was going through the motions and thinking could Cantor have a problem with "accelerating" numbers ? Yeah that was the exact metaphor that popped up in my mind...the diagonal argument seems to suggest one infinity never catches up with another because the frame of reference is wrong...its like one of the infinities "accelerates" faster then the other...
No matter how much I try I can't figure any rational way one infinity would be bigger or smaller then any other. There is a problem on the foundation of the concepts here.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Point being, for any X given real number that number will be eventually matched by a natural number before infinity even if it takes longer to count in the distinct frame of reference.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Again what I am trying to frame is that you cannot conceptually conceive of Infinity without the process of counting which is a process of motion and a process that requires time. When weighing infinities you have to take the parameters of counting speed and acceleration into account as if they were compressing or decompressing the relations between the numbers. Real numbers being compressed numbers cannot be counted in the same speed frame of reference natural numbers are.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Moreover if the rule for distinguish a number from the next one or the previous one is just a change in one bit of information then the infinite set of real numbers must correspond to the infinite set of natural numbers.

1 Reply