Anything is possible

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Consul wrote:
Marsh8472 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Right, if we assume this as an axiom then not anything is possible. But for someone who does not make this assumption, that makes it an unknown for them and possible that logically impossible does not mean absolutely impossible.
Is it logically possible for contradictions to be true? No!
Logical possibility is the highest possible kind of possibility, so there can be no "hyperlogical" kind of possibility that is higher than logical possibility, such that logical impossibilities are "hyperlogical" possibilities.
It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Consul »

Marsh8472 wrote: It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.
The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Consul wrote:
Marsh8472 wrote: It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.
The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)
Again, something like Fermat's last theorem was proven to be a logical truth derived from other logical truths. But people did not know that until 1994. Before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it. As stated earlier, the problem with asking the question "is anything possible?". Is that there are multiple definitions of possible. In the sense that someone does not know whether the law of non-contradiction can be wrong, lacks the knowledge of it being impossible for the law of non-contradiction to be false. It is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false in that way.

What is a necessary truth according to modal logic is
Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
I would still consider it an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination fallacy to declare all possible worlds share a necessary truth that we consider to be a necessary truth.

What if you're a brain in a vat and you are hard-wired to believe that the law of non-contradiction is true when it's really false? If we accept by logical axiom that anything can be wrong on that point then anything is possible.

-- Updated September 20th, 2016, 7:58 pm to add the following --

Image

Image
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Burning ghost »

Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.

The answer is obvious. We would create a new concept in order to adhere to this experience.

If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".

No term we use in language has a definitive and separate meaning outside of language. All words are part of body of words and all the words you know require all the others. Some are obviously more closely related than others, and this "closeness" is a merely a cognitive metaphor.

Contradiction is purely linguistical.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Rr6 »

Burning ghost---Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.
Our finite, eternally existent, occupied space Universe is dynamic, however, it does not move in relationship to anything else, except itself i.e. any of its parts or collective set thereof. In this sense, Universe is and unstoppable force.

Within this context I above, we can improve upon your given scenario by replacing the words unmovable object with dynamic limits of local set of motion to any other local set of motion. Now we have;

.01} unstoppable occupied space Universe,

....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,

....01b} local set---ergo a 2nd part of Universe as otherness, twoness, consciousness.
The answer is obvious. We would create a new concept in order to adhere to this experience.
Or as Fuller states it, approximately,... 'we refined our definitions, so as to get closer to absolute truth'...
If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".
Finite metaphysical-1 limits, at minimum of absolute truths.

Finite physical/energy limits--- fermions and bosons ---

Finite occupied space limits--fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy.
No term we use in language has a definitive and separate meaning outside of language. All words are part of body of words and all the words you know require all the others. Some are obviously more closely related than others, and this "closeness" is a merely a cognitive metaphor.
** ≠ ***
Contradiction is purely linguistical.
** >< ***

00 >< 000

{00}------{000}

( * * ) ----consciousness

( * | * ) ----2D Slice-of-Space

( * | * ) ---2D, Slice-of-Time

( * / * )------2D, Slice-of-Mind

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Consul »

Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote: The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)
Again, something like Fermat's last theorem was proven to be a logical truth derived from other logical truths. But people did not know that until 1994. Before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it. As stated earlier, the problem with asking the question "is anything possible?". Is that there are multiple definitions of possible. In the sense that someone does not know whether the law of non-contradiction can be wrong, lacks the knowledge of it being impossible for the law of non-contradiction to be false. It is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false in that way.

What is a necessary truth according to modal logic is
Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
I would still consider it an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination fallacy to declare all possible worlds share a necessary truth that we consider to be a necessary truth.
What if you're a brain in a vat and you are hard-wired to believe that the law of non-contradiction is true when it's really false? If we accept by logical axiom that anything can be wrong on that point then anything is possible.
First of all, Fermat's theorem (FT) is a mathematical truth, not a logical one. Of course, in his proof Wiles used logical reasoning and logical inferences. Now we know that FT is true. You write that "before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it." Yes, mathematical truths are necessary truths, and before we knew that FT is (necessarily) true it was epistemically possible that it is false. Now it is no longer epistemically possible that it is false, since it is now known to be true. But even when it was epistemically possible for FT to be false, we knew that it is either (necessarily) true or (necessarily) false.

"We say that a proposition p is epistemically possible relative to what is known in an epistemic situation S just in case p is consistent with what is known in (or 'possible in view of what is known in') S."

(Dietz, Richard. "Epistemic Modals and Correct Disagreement." In Relative Truth, edited by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Max Kölbel, 239-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 240)

It is not epistemically possible that the LNC is false, since we know that it is true. There is no ignorance as in the case of FT before it was proven to be true. I cannot falsely believe that the LNC is true precisely because it is impossibly false (in the logical sense of "impossible").

Many theists have claimed that God and his actions are not subject to the LNC, but C. S. Lewis is surely right in replying that "nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
(Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint, New York: HarperCollins, 1996. p. 18)

Anything is possible…unless it is impossible!

-- Updated September 21st, 2016, 12:12 pm to add the following --
Marsh8472 wrote:However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
If the proposition <there are no necessary truths> is true, then it is either necessarily true or non-necessarily/contingently true. If it is necessarily true, it is self-refuting and false; and if it is non-necessarily true, it is false too for the following reasons, with the arguments being reductions ad absurdum:

* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then it is possibly false that there are no necessary truths, and thus possible that there are necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possible is necessarily possible (<>p –> []<>p), it follows that the proposition <it is possible that there are necessary truths> is itself a necessary truth, in which case it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then there could have been necessary truths—then it is possible for there to be necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possibly necessary is necessary (<>[]p –> []p), the possibility of necessary truths implies their actuality. So if it is non-necessarily true and thus possibly false that there are no necessary truths, then it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

Of course, you could deny the two principles of modal logic (belonging to system S5) involved, but you'll have a very hard time finding rationally plausible reasons for doing so.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Felix »

From a temporal standpoint, finite events are known successively, therefore anything is not possible in this realm. From an eternal standpoint (what one might call a "god's eye view" ), events are known simultaneously, and therefore anything is possible - in fact in an eternal and infinite universe, anything is not only possible but also probable.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

First of all, Fermat's theorem (FT) is a mathematical truth, not a logical one. Of course, in his proof Wiles used logical reasoning and logical inferences. Now we know that FT is true. You write that "before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it." Yes, mathematical truths are necessary truths, and before we knew that FT is (necessarily) true it was epistemically possible that it is false. Now it is no longer epistemically possible that it is false, since it is now known to be true. But even when it was epistemically possible for FT to be false, we knew that it is either (necessarily) true or (necessarily) false.

"We say that a proposition p is epistemically possible relative to what is known in an epistemic situation S just in case p is consistent with what is known in (or 'possible in view of what is known in') S."

(Dietz, Richard. "Epistemic Modals and Correct Disagreement." In Relative Truth, edited by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Max Kölbel, 239-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 240)
I was using Fermat's last theorem as an example. I'm not sure if it's truly a necessary truth or not. The proof was peer reviewed but I would still consider it possible that something was overlooked. I haven't seen the proof myself. To me it would still be epistemically possible for this proof to not be a necessary truth. The problem here as I see it is that "what is known" is not actually a dichotomy where something is known to be true or not known to be true but about degrees of certainty that something is true. In that way everything is epistemically possible.
It is not epistemically possible that the LNC is false, since we know that it is true. There is no ignorance as in the case of FT before it was proven to be true. I cannot falsely believe that the LNC is true precisely because it is impossibly false (in the logical sense of "impossible").
There's a couple of layers here. Something could be unknowably true and may seem like impossibly false. To claim that something is true because it's impossible that it is false follows an argument from ignorance. Proving something is logically impossible is another issue I'm seeing here. If someone thought 3+2=1 was a necessary truth according to mathematics but then found out it was false because 3+2=5 this does not disprove mathematics because my knowledge of necessary truths in math contradicted the reality of mathematical truths in math. When you conclude that LNC is impossibly false, it could then be considered epistemically possible that it is not impossibly false for the same reason someone could think 3+2=1 and anything else disproves mathematics. Arguing against a necessary Truth with a necessary False in other words.
If the proposition <there are no necessary truths> is true, then it is either necessarily true or non-necessarily/contingently true. If it is necessarily true, it is self-refuting and false; and if it is non-necessarily true, it is false too for the following reasons, with the arguments being reductions ad absurdum:
If there are no necessary truths which included the law of non-contradiction then the part I underlined has no meaning. It is necessarily true and non-necessarily/contingently true, and it's an elephant or whatever else you want all at once as I see it. The either/or stuff assumes the logical laws again.
* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then it is possibly false that there are no necessary truths, and thus possible that there are necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possible is necessarily possible (<>p –> []<>p), it follows that the proposition <it is possible that there are necessary truths> is itself a necessary truth, in which case it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then there could have been necessary truths—then it is possible for there to be necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possibly necessary is necessary (<>[]p –> []p), the possibility of necessary truths implies their actuality. So if it is non-necessarily true and thus possibly false that there are no necessary truths, then it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

Of course, you could deny the two principles of modal logic (belonging to system S5) involved, but you'll have a very hard time finding rationally plausible reasons for doing so.
Showing how the idea of no necessary truths existing leads to a contradiction does not prove anything unless we assume the law of non-contradiction is correct and is a reliable authoritity in determining what is true. How can you show no necessary truths leads to a contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction? A conclusion is not proven false just because the conclusion is absurd. I'm not saying the absurd is the truth either, just that it's possible the truth is absurd.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Rr6 »

Felix--From a temporal standpoint, finite events are known successively, therefore anything is not possible in this realm.
No rational, logical common sense here, that I can see.
From an eternal standpoint (what one might call a "god's eye view" ), events are known simultaneously, and therefore anything is possible
Huh? No rational, logical common sense here, that I can see.
- in fact in an eternal and infinite universe, anything is not only possible but also probable.
Still proposing infinite Universe, with no actual specifics as I have repeated put forward and not a shred of rational, logical common sense for your viewpoint. Not to mention-- again ---no shred of evidence.

Repeating irrational, illogical non-common sense will never make your viewpoints valid, Felix imho

r6

-- Updated September 21st, 2016, 5:56 pm to add the following --
r6....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,
I recieived private post from someone who did understand what any of my dots or dashs meant. The dots and dashes don't meant anything much that I'm aware of. If I recall correctly over the last hundred or more years of writing, people some times use dots and dashes in various ways as formatting filler for lists, outlines hierarchies etc.......

Seems pretty simple to me. In some forums the only way to create indentation or list with or gaps is put in some dots, as just placing space bar spaces will not work.

** ≠ ***

Ive used these a few times in this thread in response to Marsh specifically. These dots are also called asterisks. I used them as form of of set mathematics.

I will spell it out again, the first two asterisks-- or dots to some ---are 2 asterisks not equal too 3 asterisks. In my last post I was replying BG's post, hoping to make clear what is possible or not can be understood with simple visual or tactile sets/groups.

Most complex language or linguistics that he suggested is not necessary to express some obvious truths regarding what is possible, not possible, contradictory, valid or not valid etc.....
Rr6 wrote:
Burning ghost---Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.
Our finite, eternally existent, occupied space Universe is dynamic, however, it does not move in relationship to anything else, except itself i.e. any of its parts or collective set thereof. In this sense, Universe is and unstoppable force.
Within this context I above, we can improve upon your given scenario by replacing the words unmovable object with dynamic limits of local set of motion to any other local set of motion. Now we have;
.01} unstoppable occupied space Universe,
....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,
....01b} local set---ergo a 2nd part of Universe as otherness, twoness, consciousness.
Or as Fuller states it, approximately,... 'we refined our definitions, so as to get closer to absolute truth'...
If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".
Finite metaphysical-1 limits, at minimum of absolute truths.
Finite physical/energy limits--- fermions and bosons ---
Finite occupied space limits--fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy.
Contradiction is purely linguistical.
** >< ***

00 >< 000

{00}------{000}

( * * ) ----consciousness

( * | * ) ----2D Slice-of-Space

( * | * ) ---2D, Slice-of-Time

( * / * )------2D, Slice-of-Mind
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Still proposing infinite Universe, with no actual specifics as I have repeated put forward and not a shred of rational, logical common sense for your viewpoint. Not to mention-- again ---no shred of evidence.

Repeating irrational, illogical non-common sense will never make your viewpoints valid, Felix imho

r6
I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe. Usually when people argue against it's because they think the idea of traversing an infinite amount of time before now is impossible without providing the proof. If we assume there was an infinite amount of time before now, I am unable to arrive at a contradiction. There are some inductive proofs for this:

It is possible to traverse 1 year of time
If it is possible to traverse x years of time then it is possible to traverse x+1 years of time
Therefore it is possible to traverse any amount of time

Where people get tripped up I think is imagining an event an infinite amount of time before now which is mathematically impossible. In an eternal universe an event an infinite amount of time ago would not exist since there is no such number as "infinite". There would be events 1 year ago, a million years ago, trillion years ago, etc...
I recieived private post from someone who did understand what any of my dots or dashs meant. The dots and dashes don't meant anything much that I'm aware of. If I recall correctly over the last hundred or more years of writing, people some times use dots and dashes in various ways as formatting filler for lists, outlines hierarchies etc.......

Seems pretty simple to me. In some forums the only way to create indentation or list with or gaps is put in some dots, as just placing space bar spaces will not work.

** ≠ ***

Ive used these a few times in this thread in response to Marsh specifically. These dots are also called asterisks. I used them as form of of set mathematics.

I will spell it out again, the first two asterisks-- or dots to some ---are 2 asterisks not equal too 3 asterisks. In my last post I was replying BG's post, hoping to make clear what is possible or not can be understood with simple visual or tactile sets/groups.

Most complex language or linguistics that he suggested is not necessary to express some obvious truths regarding what is possible, not possible, contradictory, valid or not valid etc.....
Just because ** appears different than *** does not mean they are. Just like 0.9999999... appears different than 1, people get tripped up on this thinking they are different too. According to conventional math 0.999999... = 1. If ≠ equals = then by substitution ** ≠ *** is equivalent to ** = ***. We can prove this by redefining what equals means and seeing it for ourselves. If the law of non-contradiction is false then this would also be a reality.

What we get from the law of non-contradiction is meaning. Without it, everything is meaningless. If meaning is a something subjective only and does not exist without minds it would make sense that the law of non-contradiction does not exist in the objective sense without minds. Like what someone said before, we did not really define what "exists" means either.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Burning ghost »

r6 -

You still have not given me a reason to unfoe you. I don't think you can either.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Anything Is Not Possible

Post by Rr6 »

Marsh8472--I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe.
And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.

As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.

** does not equal ***.

I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything Is Not Possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Rr6 wrote:
Marsh8472--I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe.
And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.

As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.

** does not equal ***.

I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.

r6
Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything Is Not Possible

Post by Rr6 »

Marsh--Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?
..."Philosophy--the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."...

Ergo, the above is the search for truth-- absolute and relative ---and this is what Ive offered from day one here at Philo. Specifically my cosmic hierarchy and my comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy concept of existence { 1a, 1b, 1c }, reality { 2a, b, c } and knowledge{ absolute and relative }. Aka metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

None have offered, for the most part, any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens, as stated, nor have they given, for the most part, any evidence to substantiate any claims of my givens being invalidate.

There has been some irrelevant, irrational, illogical viewpoints, as reply posts to my comments, as well as skewing of my givens as stated, and my intentions as stated. Whether others are misunderstanding or misrepresentation { skewing } of my intended meanings, is not always obvious, and other times it does appear to me to be intended skewing.

r6
Marsh8472 wrote:
Rr6 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.
As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.
** does not equal ***.
I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything Is Not Possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Rr6 wrote:
Marsh--Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?
..."Philosophy--the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."...

Ergo, the above is the search for truth-- absolute and relative ---and this is what Ive offered from day one here at Philo. Specifically my cosmic hierarchy and my comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy concept of existence { 1a, 1b, 1c }, reality { 2a, b, c } and knowledge{ absolute and relative }. Aka metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

None have offered, for the most part, any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens, as stated, nor have they given, for the most part, any evidence to substantiate any claims of my givens being invalidate.

There has been some irrelevant, irrational, illogical viewpoints, as reply posts to my comments, as well as skewing of my givens as stated, and my intentions as stated. Whether others are misunderstanding or misrepresentation { skewing } of my intended meanings, is not always obvious, and other times it does appear to me to be intended skewing.

r6
Marsh8472 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Your ideas remind me of this scene from star trek

[yid=]E-O5dZ9BLLc[/yid] with that lady acting like she has it all figured out :)

If you are your own judge about whether your claims have been invalidated then I'm sure your claims have not been invalidated on those conditions. But who is the authority on objective Truth if two people reason to different conclusions. But poeple thumb their noses at those sources as authorities too.

-- Updated September 22nd, 2016, 2:15 pm to add the following --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O5dZ9BLLc

-- Updated September 22nd, 2016, 2:21 pm to add the following --
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021