Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
Post: #61  Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
In other words, you just want to proclaim that I am wrong.
|
From a character such as yourself, the most I could hope for, is that you secretly understand why you are not right. The only evidence of this will come in the form of non-repetition of your previous claims and reasoning.
| Quote: |
When I ask for clarification of what you mean (define your words), you claim "foul!".
|
I think that you're being disingenuous here. Why? Because your very argument lives or dies upon concepts such as 'existence' and 'reality', etc.. Yet when I challenge your argument, your defence - rather than to challenge anything I actually said - corners me into defining the very concepts that you yourself borrow for your own argument!!
It's a ridiculous defence, because you yourself need to define those concepts in order to utilise them throughout your argument. But you don't. And this is why your argument is susceptible to the counter that I posed, just today.
... What I mean, is that your own misunderstanding of concepts such as [actual] existence - which is synonymous with 'reality', by logical necessity - is the basis of your flawed claims about singularities not being able to actually exist. And I've explained why this is the case: you don't appreciate the difference between something that appears in the mind, and something that exists beyond the mind.
Every 'thing' that you are experiencing, exists WITHIN, not 'without'.
That is, what is within, is not necessarily without.
And the reason why your reasoning fails, is that you infered that scientific observation was of phenomena 'without'. DIDN'T YOU?
| Quote: |
If you merely want to proclaim that I am wrong, you have done that.
|
I haven't "merely proclaimed" anything. Anybody reading this conversation will clearly see that I have given REASONS as per why you are wrong.
Why don't you do yourself a favour and silently retreat from this thread? Two thousand+ years of philosophy reduces the role of science, in metaphysics, to sweet fanny adams. Stop using empirical evidence as the basis of metaphysical claims, or else continue to look completely green. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to do you a favour here - you need a push in the correct direction.
Try reading 'Sophie's world'. It's a perfect introduction to philosophy for somebody with your obvious intelligence, who has never encountered the radical thought required to participate in discussions such as this, before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #62 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| or else continue to look silly. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to do you a favour here - you need a push in the correct direction. |
To a silly mind, everything of reason looks silly.
Interestingly, I have no such trouble with real physicists. They want to discuss the mathematics and have helped to improve on my wording a bit, but have no claim against what I have presented and find it a bit stumping to argue against.
But then they are actual physicists, not merely wannabe philosophers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #63 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You responded very quickly. Read my post again - I've just edited it.
| James S Saint wrote: |
Interestingly, I have no such trouble with real physicists. They want to discuss the mathematics and have helped to improve on my wording a bit, but have no claim against what I have presented and find it a bit stumping to argue against.
But then they are actual physicists, not merely wannabe philosophers. |
That final sentence SAYS IT ALL. You are speaking as one who gives authority to physicists to know reality. And you ridicule philosophers in the same breath.
Are you even listening to a word I say, I wonder.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bluemist
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 14
|
| Post: #64 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| I have no such trouble with real physicists. They want to discuss the mathematics and have helped to improve on my wording a bit, but have no claim against what I have presented and find it a bit stumping to argue against. |
They're just being unhelpful.
If singularities do not exist at the quantum level, then what does? Has anyone ever seen an electron? Of course not, because that doesn't exist any more than a singularity. Or else these both exist alike.
What do *you* think existence is? I'm assuming you're a materialist, so that would be a good start. Whatever is made of a mythical material substance can be *said* to exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #65 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
Are you even listening to a word I say, I wonder. |
I am very familiar with the concepts of solipsism and I have no desire to bother with such old, tired, and demonstrably discredited philosophy.
This thread is about logical reasoning (you know math, logic, thinking..), not irrational fantasizing.
If you want to promote solipsism, why not do that on your own thread? It doesn't belong here.
| Bluemist wrote: |
| What do *you* think existence is? |
Existence == any realm of mutual affectance.
That says that for anything to exist, it must have effect upon something else in the same realm.
Even if you are the solipsist, you can't get around that definition. But of course, anyone can deny anything as long as they don't have to be accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #66 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
Are you even listening to a word I say, I wonder. |
I am very familiar with the concepts of solipsism and I have no desire to bother with such old, tired, and demonstrably discredited philosophy.
|
Then demonstrate it. 
You are definitely disingenuous. I am sure of that now. You aren't even addressing the complaints against your so-called argument any more.
| Quote: |
If you want to promote solipsism, why not do that on your own thread? It doesn't belong here.
|
Squire, you are talking naive nonsense within the epistemological section of a philosophy forum  My reason for ridiculing you is purely in the interests of the quality of this forum.
Get a grip of yourself before it's too late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bluemist
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 14
|
| Post: #67 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
Existence == any realm of mutual affectance.
That says that for anything to exist, it must have effect upon something else in the same realm. |
Almost. A realm of affectance is a location, or the entire universe (my choice).
But "anything" is not a realm but a hypothetical potentiality that may actualize as a consistently observable effect (event) at a probable location, or anywhere. This potentiality is not a thing. But neither is the event! The *event* is an observable, yet it is not any "thing". It's just a happening.
This does not necessarily lead to solipsim. But it sure kills realism, especially materialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #68 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
Are you even listening to a word I say, I wonder. |
I am very familiar with the concepts of solipsism and I have no desire to bother with such old, tired, and demonstrably discredited philosophy.
|
Then demonstrate it. |
On YOUR thread. Such an argument doesn't belong on this thread.
| lifegazer wrote: |
Squire, you are talking naive nonsense within the epistemological section of a philosophy forum My reason for ridiculing you is purely in the interests of the quality of this forum.
Get a grip of yourself before it's too late. |
You are (typically) arrogantly presuming ownership of philosophy. If someone doesn't agree with your non-sense, then they are not "quality philosophers" and are naive. Why don't you just start your own church?
| Bluemist wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
Existence == any realm of mutual affectance.
That says that for anything to exist, it must have effect upon something else in the same realm. |
Almost. A realm of affectance is a location, or the entire universe (my choice). |
Emm.. no, a "realm" is not a "location" but could be centered around a location. A realm is a set.
| Bluemist wrote: |
| But "anything" is not a realm but a hypothetical potentiality that may actualize as a consistently observable effect (event) at a probable location, or anywhere. This potentiality is not a thing. But neither is the event! The *event* is an observable, yet it is not any "thing". It's just a happening. |
And these assertions have to do with what?
| Bluemist wrote: |
| This does not necessarily lead to solipsim. But it sure kills realism, especially materialism. |
The presumption that I am a materialist is not only false, but in my case, ridicules.
You have said nothing that I can see that at all "kills" realism. Define your words better and you could probably see that yourself.
Does any of this relate to the topic of how nothingness could not ever be an actual state of reality due to the logic proposed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #69 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have been following the argument between JSS and Lifegazer,and I agree with Lifegazer, Now I request Lifegazer to link his argument with the original question.
Me, I submit that the cause of somethingness is consciousness. It's a matter of faith whether or not there is something 'outside' or 'beyond' or 'above' or 'underpinning' consciousness.The best contender for the role of this Platonic thingy is mathematics.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #70 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda, I actually addressed his initial post on the first page of this thread, if that's what you mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #71 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| Me, I submit that the cause of somethingness is consciousness. It's a matter of faith whether or not there is something 'outside' or 'beyond' or 'above' or 'underpinning' consciousness.The best contender for the role of this Platonic thingy is mathematics. |
So then what is the cause of consciousness (or does that not qualify as "something"?)?
If all of reality exists only in a mind, then within what does the mind exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #72 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
Are you even listening to a word I say, I wonder. |
I am very familiar with the concepts of solipsism and I have no desire to bother with such old, tired, and demonstrably discredited philosophy.
|
Then demonstrate it. |
On YOUR thread. Such an argument doesn't belong on this thread.
|
Actually, there is no rational argument to refute solipsism. Most people, like yourself, just refuse it out of hand.
Regardless, the point is - and great philosophers have said the same thing throughout history - that 'the world' exists within awareness (within the mind). The world 'out there' is not something we are privy to. And that is a simple FACT of reason. A fact which utterly destroys everything that you have said throughout this thread.
Yet, in spite of reason and history, you obstinately cling on to your naive assumptions, refusing to let go of your conclusions. And you have the gall to call me 'arrogant'? 
| lifegazer wrote: |
You are (typically) arrogantly presuming ownership of philosophy. If someone doesn't agree with your non-sense, then they are not "quality philosophers" and are naive. Why don't you just start your own church?
|
And why won't you actually confront the objections to your so-called argument?
You're talking as though I alone hold these views. Yet, they've been known since at least the time of Plato. And anyone who wishes to do metaphysics, as you do, needs to think deeply about making claims of 'reality' based upon what can be seen within the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #73 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| And why won't you actually confront the objections to your so-called argument? |
Because I haven't seen any yet. And frankly, you appear ill equipped to pose any.
The proposed thesis was basically that nothingness cannot ever be the state of reality due to the logic relationship between absolute lack of impetus and absolute infinite freedom/opportunity.
The math indicates that regardless of having no impetus, change will occur anyway, thereby immediately destroying the state of nothingness.
Now do you have any argument against that concept? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bluemist
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 14
|
| Post: #74 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| a "realm" is not a "location" but could be centered around a location. A realm is a set. |
Now it's a set? You're just ducking back-and-forth from math, physics, and philosophy, as it suits your newest stance. You'll see no sets out there in a real world.
| Quote: |
| Bluemist wrote: |
| But "anything" is not a realm but a hypothetical potentiality that may actualize as a consistently observable effect (event) at a probable location, or anywhere. This potentiality is not a thing. But neither is the event! The *event* is an observable, yet it is not any "thing". It's just a happening. |
And these assertions have to do with what? |
In this thread, you have claimed a hand wave approval from physics forums. I'm calling your bluff. Of course, this part should really be done on a physics or math forum.
| Quote: |
| Does any of this relate to the topic of how nothingness could not ever be an actual state of reality due to the logic proposed? |
Yes.
Nothingness *only* has meaning in philosophy. and not in math. Neither in physics, which is just applied math, and even more restricted in its domain of discourse.
To prove your thesis, you'd have to stick to philosophical premises and philosophical logic. In philosophy, nothing&infinity is disjointed from anything actual. Pointed out in Berkeley-vs-Newton, this was fudged around adequately for math purposes after a 150 year embarrasment. But none of the math explanations fly in philosophical discourse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #75 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bluemist wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
| a "realm" is not a "location" but could be centered around a location. A realm is a set. |
Now it's a set? You're just ducking back-and-forth from math, physics, and philosophy, as it suits your newest stance. You'll see no sets out there in a real world. |
Now we see the obvious need for people to learn their definitions.
A "set" == a grouping; a gathering of entities.
The specific group that we are talking about is that group of entities we refer to as physical existence. It doesn't matter whether you think they are "real" (as though you had a definition for that either). Real or not, those entities, even if merely dreams, constitute a realm of existence.
| Bluemist wrote: |
| Nothingness *only* has meaning in philosophy. and not in math. Neither in physics, which is just applied math, and even more restricted in its domain of discourse. |
Well in case you didn't notice, I posted this in philosophy. It was posted in philosophy forums elsewhere too. The physicists just happen to be interested in such philosophical ideas of how the universe was created (big surprise).
Note also, that the math is not the proof. The math merely demonstrates the train of thought. That is all any math really does anyway. It gives precision to measurement so as to more greatly display concerns of detail. I needed to "display" the detail that no matter how small an impetus becomes, its freedom increases proportionally to infinity and thus the outcome doesn't change. I can say that in words, but people want to see the math. Pictures would more easily do the trick, but online in forums, they seldom are postable and I don't have a good means to produce them anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
