“”"“Those, however, who do not live in Justhink’s artificial universe, can make a distinction between concepts and their origin. Just because the experience of difference may be a cognitive ancestor of the concept of existence does not make it a conceptual precursor.”"""
Conceptual precurser? (Maybe ‘existential’ precurser or ‘universal’ precurser or ‘phenominal’ precurser)
Is this a semantic error?
It is suggesting that existence was held conceptually prior to difference. It is stating that something comes from nothing – which definately refutes every mathematical system I know of!
Asserting this truth, asserts that EVERYTHING is acausal, which definately collapses reason.
“”""""“Justhink: I’m just starting to think you’ve created a language. It is the first language, it seems, that has ever been created to an end other than communication. Have you created this language to construct the artificial universe in which you now exist? If I am right, you plan to fuse your artificial universe with the original universe by force, and the first battle is being waged on this board…I believe you have also refuted all previous mathematical systems. Good work.”"""""""
Maybe you just articulated a specific perspective towards a mechanism we all use in the process of verifying abstractions phenominally. I don’t see how I could possibly be ‘the first’ if this were the case; as it stands to reason such an observation would describe everybody’s process of abstraction and ‘reality harmonization’ in a meta sense. It’s something I can’t say yes or no to. It sounds like you’re describing the idea that a system of cohesion ( a language as you ‘willed’) exists for a purpose other than communication. I hardly find this to be a shocking concept these days; though your specific articulation provides wonderful food for thought IMO - as there are so many ways to interpret it.
Justhink, you seemed to have missed my thread about trying to epistemologically understand the whole “The map is not the territory” issue. That’s ok, I only got a few responses, the board was reset and I reposted it to get one lone response.
But, one of your recent posts noting that the axiom existence exists is this:
sort of starled me. I’m not sure I understand most of what this thread has been about, I’ve admittedly only been skimming it, but as usual I note your repeated insistence on speaking in tongues. That method is, shall we say, not without merit, granting that there is something behind the words in the first place, which I think there is.
I am not sure which of these statements you’d claim to support:[ol][li]Knowledge is impossible[]Knowledge is possible, but it must be incomplete[]Complete knowledge is possible[/ol]I personally shoot for (2) myself.[/li]
Given existing “philosophical tools”, a combination of skepticism and deconstructionism any proposition or set of propositions can be decimated in short time by a rather simple combination of semantic and conceptual attacks. The reason this works is because, fundamentally, it is more or less commonly accepted that naturalism is not the way to go for understanding “true” reality.
Someone is always there to point out that you cannot separate the problem from the way you look at it; that is to say, every time you seek to examine a problem, you bring a host of unresolved issues with you and an assortment of unjustified and abitrary views to view it with. If you would like to think of pictures of reality, we frame them before we use them, but now the debate is which frame is best.
Of course to analyze that question we take a picture of frames and frame it.
We come to matters of philosophy after we’ve mastered a language. And with mastering a language comes all sorts of other techniques (that we have names for). And then we use this language to attempt to understand what encompasses language.
Is it a mirror? But then, what does a mirror tell us? The image in the mirror is not me, though I operate on myself with various tools while using it. Now, what is the meaning behind a mirror? In what sense does the person “in” the mirror exist? But that’s to look at the question incorrectly, isn’t it? It seems silly to look to a mirror to prove my own existence.
And yet our language is a reflection of our lives. In what sense could that reflection define us? Why should we look there for proof? Or, if we did look there for proof, in what way is that definitive?
Philosophy is not impossible; when done right it is a normal conversation. When done incorrectly it is disguised nonsense, using words without borders as if they had them.
I dunno why you’re making all this more complicated than it needs to be. It seems quite straight-forward to me.
This is what I think you’re saying (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong):
You’re saying that the number one can only exist because it is not the number zero. Zero and one are two sides of the same coin. They both need each other in order to exist. Therefore, you conclude, the fundamental axiom is difference.
The only thing that makes “one” important is the fact it isn’t zero and the only thing that makes zero important is the fact it isn’t one.
There is a distinction between “Thing” and “No-Thing” and you think that that distinction is the important factor.
You think that that distinction is, in fact, the defining characteristic of reality - that one equals a lack of zero, and zero equals a lack of one.
Therefore difference is the important factor not existence.
The above is my interpretation of what you are saying.
However, I still don’t agree with you. The importance of one lies not in it’s relative position to zero. One isn’t relative at all in fact, and neither is zero.
They are only relative in your mind. But reality is bigger than your mind. One does differ from zero, you are correct. So in this sense you are right that there is a difference. But this difference is important only to us mortals and to our language.
One (existence) will always be one regardless of whether there is a zero and vice versa.
Zero can exist independently of one. You say that zero can’t exist without one ever having been there, I say that zero and one are absolutes. They don’t need each other.
Obviously they do have a relationship of some kind to each other in that they cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If one is there then zero can’t be, but this is just a linguistic relationship. The two have no relationship beyond that.
You seem to acknowledge this point in your next paragraph when you state that difference is merely a “conceptual precursor”:
Then you say:
Well obviously.
Either existence exists or it doesn’t. And therein lies a “difference” - the difference between existing and not existing.
But I still don’t think that has any real bearing on the question of whether something IN FACT exists or not.
Difference is a very important word, I agree, but there still has to be existence in order for there to be things to different to.
I still don’t understand where God comes into the equation.
You then go on to talk about the second axiom - the law of identity - but I think we’d better sort out the first axiom first before we move on to that one.
ps erislover I actually don’t have much of a problem with Justhink’s use of language. He seems to know what the words he uses mean and once you take the time to burrow into it there’s usually some kind of point hidden in there.
But then maybe I’m just as weird as Justhink (no offence, Justhink).
Oh Jojo I agree completely. I’ve enjoyed his contributions to the board. But I do find his manner of speaking to be non-standard, and sometimes filled with superfluous words.
If you’re going to pull out the language dependant stick Jojo, please consider your statements in regards to the same filter!
You could have just as easily written, “Let’s not talk about this anymore”; as the language dependant filter on this topic cancels both of us out by making us both wrong in the process.
Being wrong about both difference And existence does not sound like a pleasant place to be IMO!
I terms of zero and 1; I’m stating that “zero is the value of one, from the perspective of stasis, or homeostasis.”
I don’t hold the opinion or belief that zero actually exists as an absolute; that there is some part of the universe where there is absolutely nothing. While you may be dismissive of some points one can make in regards to thought; I think ideas that collapse the purpose of thought should be given consideration; as in the language dependant aspect mentioned. While I agree that you may be correct; I don’t see many options once that sense of accountaility is discarded from logic and material. There are other options left, which is why I don’t humor such a path as absolute truth. I’m sure you understand the phenomenal burden of providing evidence for how your thoughts are outside of the system of thought delusion described by yourself in regards to this topic.
Basically, zero (nothing) does not exist as an absolute - it’s impossible; as it would either suck everything up and collapse an existence universe at all points as if it never did exist; which means we wouldn’t be here (even though we were; even memory and experience and interaction would vanish)-- or it’s a word used to amend every individual thing ‘unecessarily’. Zero-two zero-people zero-are zero-talking nothing-about nothing-nothing (two people are talking about nothing). Kinda like the God concept; since presumably God is in and of, and the creator, and possessor of everything and or anything; all of this is amended by that concept.
Zero, instead, IMO is a concept used to frame a point of perspective where our lack of acuity does not allow us to discern a heterogenous reality within this stasis. Zero, is a flawless diamond - now take an electron microscope and tell me it matches the same standard of smoothness and flawlessness as it did with our crappy magnifying glass… Zero; is the universal symbol for communicating standard or stasis conceptually IMO; states dependant upon our lack of acuity rather than an absolute universal space of LACK - or nothing. IFFFF by some odd chance, zero actually does exist in an absolute state and an absolute state of nothingness does actually exist; then that runs into ‘something comes from nothing’ issue; which is logical kryptonite! I’m inverting your earlier argument, except I think this one makes much more sense, by leaps and bounds. Declaring the existence of zero as ‘real’ is not umm… realistic. Zero is not a term to mess with conceptually; as phenomenal applications of it collapse the logic being used to declare it through a whole maze of arguments that focus upon applying the relativity of nothing, to all of existence.
That being the case; the number ONE is actually the first number we refer to. However, since zero doesn’t actually exist - the number one has no conceptual or phenomenal difference from which something else can come from - to declare one as being existent; zero has to not only be given the property of existence but of creation! What I’m expressing is slightly different than your summary.
1+0 still equals zero.
I’m saying that the first existent is the same as the non-existent.
1 actually EQUALS zero; as it falls exactly the same as zero when existing all by itself. My version of 1 is your version of zero.
It would be like you saying that zero exists, but one does not… for me to say that one exists. Got it? =) Your existence is my zero - until it becomes a property of one-modified (difference).
I think I’m being pretty liberal by declaring difference as the first axiom; as quotient is verrrry tempting. =)
“”“Difference is a very important word, I agree, but there still has to be existence in order for there to be things to different to.”""
That’s where we’re running into each-others ‘stuff’.
You say that existence is necessary in order for THINGS to allow difference. You used an (s). Things ARE difference. In the absence of things, you have ‘thing’ - which means nothing in and of itself. With zero, we have this imaginary number; and with one we have stasis oblivion (I use ‘oblivion’ phenomenally) - which is a state of irreconcialable non-being (even though it is; again, by itself it can only serve as an imaginary number) The only one thing that I have seen exist is difference; from which we frame existence as the difference of all differences (which doesn’t particularly mean a whole lot - much like talking about absolute nothingness). Like zero, I don’t see any compeling reason to use the concept of existence as an absolute - as it is dependant upon not being nothing in order to exist. As a unification, with no sets or subsets or meta-sets; existence is the conceptual equal of zero. It doesn’t mean anything without difference; as difference asserts a lack of nothing - where-as existence, in spite of it’s common usage asserts nothing through its unification without any other property.
Existence is “what is” – well that’s fine, but what is is difference; so existence must be a synonym of difference or it’s a fairy-tale word.
No, it doesn’t make us both wrong, it only makes you wrong. We are both speaking the same language - English - therefore we need to be consistent in what we mean by any particular word.
The word “exist” is kind of an ultimate word. It is not to be used lightly. If you say something exists then you making quite a large statement.
I think maybe you have underestimated just what an enormous statement you are making and you are therefore using different words (like “exist” and “difference”) as though they carry the same power.
“They’re both just words right? Therefore they are equal in power.”
Well they’re not equal in power, they are different.
One is greater than the other. Exist is a huge monumental word - a word you only use with extreme care. Difference, on the other hand, is just an ordinary, everyday kind of word - the kind of word you might use down the supermarket in daily conversation. Maybe when you’re discussing the merits of different kinds of soap powder?
“Different” is a word to be taken lightly. “Exist”, however, needs to be treated with respect. They are completely different words therefore they are completely different concepts.
You may think that language is a human construct and therefore susceptible to error and you’d be right. So the only logical thing to do (since we are, ourself, human) is to at least agree on a common definition of things. A common definition decreases the chance of error through misunderstanding.
This paragraph seems to be your central thesis (on this particular point). Why do you think zero would “suck everything up and collapse a universe”? You seem to be trying to equate zero with a black hole like you find in space. Black holes do suck up stuff like light and time, it’s true, but there’s loads of them around (so astronomers currently think) and yet we are still here. Not only are we here but we think the universe is expanding!
So maybe zero and one can exist side-by-side. The evidence would seem to suggest so.
And, anyway, why do you think I’m talking about the “universe”. Modern physics suggests there is a multiverse consisting of millions of parallel universes and spread across 24 dimensions.
I’m sure zero could find a niche somewhere in all that jumble.
No, zero means “nothing” not all that other stuff you claim it means.
No it doesn’t. Maybe “something” and “nothing” have both been here for eternity. Neither one needed to be “created” as such, they have just inhabited different sections of reality at different times.
So? So what?
The number one doesn’t need to have any difference. That is because the number one only needs to exist, it doesn’t need to be different.
I still don’t understand what God has to do with all this. If by “creation” you mean “reality” I’d rather you used that term since creation carries religious overtones.
That is a contradiction in terms - the existant cannot equal the non-existant. I would say that’s a simple fact, otherwise the terms existant and non-existant would have no meaning.
I was pretty certain that you were not talking about the immigrants that they are flooding the country with. I call it dumbing us down and darkening us up. Of course me and mine are keeping our distance in our little town that is still bright and light.
Keep them off the television, and homeschool if you have to.
JT, you logic is flawed because you make a hasty generalization in assigning your own characteristics to other people. Just because you are counter-intelligent does not mean that most other people are. Therefore a solution that would effectively deal with you, such as your proposed suicide machine, will not necessarily work for most others. You’d best go back to the drawing board for another decade or so.
“”"“Different” is a word to be taken lightly. “Exist”, however, needs to be treated with respect. They are completely different words therefore they are completely different concepts.""""
I’ve been without internet access for a while here…
Hmm… I’ve still been unable to communicate my point.
To treat “exist” with awareness, let alone respect! requires “difference”. There is no inherent difference in existence, as it is defined. Existence operates as an arbitrary variable, requiring a condition in order to take on itself! - In order to exist or to be.
Existence does not mean anything in and of itself; existentially or logically.
“”“This paragraph seems to be your central thesis (on this particular point). Why do you think zero would “suck everything up and collapse a universe”?”"""
We have a universe of motion, correct? What part of this universe is going to prevent one ion per 10 trillion years from accidentally ‘happening’ upon this zero point which exists?
Where are all of the replacement ions coming from? Zero?!
Now run this scenario for eternity and you’re left with a situation where eventually all of the photons or whatever are all eaten up, just by sheer accident — even if they can somehow 'locate zero"!!
and protect themselves from ‘entering’ it; accidents alone over the course of eternity will render collapse. When this collapse occurs; it occurs at all points - meaning; we can prove recursively the concept of nothing is not an absoute; that difference is not collapsing - and from that vantage point; that an existent is able to remain.
Talking about zero and nothing as if they are absolutes is crazy talk IMO - how exactly are they located, how are they sustained, how do they influence perception and change? To even be considered rational when discussing these terms, it seems imperative to myself, that they only be considered in the context of simulation. Declaring them as absolutes literally destroys our conversation; in the sense of logical derivation. It doesn’t change our existential truth of existence; but it certainly collapses ratonality – these concepts as absolutes will erode a conversation very
