01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [501][502][503][504][505][506][507][508][509][510] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1450 |
Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist.
a) Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added.
b) Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either. **
1451 |
So you still think that nothingness exists? **
1452 |
Then all things are possible, which means that nothing is possible, because nothing is possible until something is impossible. **
For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. To me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic. ** **
Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist.
a) Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added.
b) Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either. **
1453 |
1454 |
1455 |
1456 |
I believe that everyone should have a degree of self-doubt, else they cannot correct their own errors. But to believe that;
»No-thing might be equal to Some-thing«, »Not-A ?= A« is to blatantly doubt the simplest logic.Without confidence in logic, a mind has no choice but to believe only in its direct perception or in whatever it has been programmed to believe. There is no other escape from mis-perception or programming. That is how human drones are made. Logic is the only freedom from programming. And dealing with drones on the internet takes a whole, whole lot and generally isn't very pleasant with dubious results.
If nothing might be something, then anything might be nothing. Anything I might say or you might think, might be nothing at all = zero confidence. Thus there isn't much point in talking about anything that isn't already believed until programming updates. Logic is meaningless, and RM is ALL about Logic and what can be known because of it. There is no room for doubting if »A is A«. **
1457 |
I think you both are more on the same page than you realize. **
One is saying part of the argument while the other is bringing the counter and both become necessary. There should be a balance between doubt and confidence in everything you do to ensure that you are learning as much as possible and continue to push your self to constantly be sure of what is possible and what is not and to keep checking your work in case you were wrong. All of our conversations here are meaningless when you get right down to it as we're only sharing information that any one of us could acquire and bring out through our subconscious connections to conscious communications.
Realistically, we'll never prove any bit of this beyond a shadow of a doubt; not the way that many would want us to. It's like if a person believes in God and they're talking to someone who doesn't; they have to try and explain why they believe in God. At some point, proof is asked for that can't be given and the person has to revise their statement to 'Well, I can't say for sure if God exists or not'; if they're smart; but they still know that God exists, as does every single person even though they may doubt it from time to time.
We will never prove God, because that isn't how it works. We shouldn't have to prove God and it shouldn't be our lifes passion. God proves himself to each of us over time regardless of how many people refuse to acknowledge the seeming coincidental ways he reaches us and the prayers he answers; ignoring those things because they are so easily ignored and unprovable; but everyone still knows.
There are just some things we can reasonably come to know and understand and make use of that people will never be able to prove. Instead of wasting time trying to prove it to others, perhaps you should prove what can be done with it, instead. You have to keep in mind that you're not just fighting the ideas of other people, but their fear as well; in this case, James' fear. I think you did a pretty good job. **
1458 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Without confidence in logic, a mind has no choice but to believe only in its direct perception or in whatever it has been programmed to believe. There is no other escape from mis-perception or programming. That is how human drones are made. Logic is the only freedom from programming. And dealing with drones on the internet takes a whole, whole lot and generally isn't very pleasant with dubious results.
If nothing might be something, then anything might be nothing. Anything I might say or you might think, might be nothing at all = zero confidence. Thus there isn't much point in talking about anything that isn't already believed until programming updates. Logic is meaningless, and RM is ALL about Logic and what can be known because of it. There is no room for doubting if A is A.« **
But logic isn't all there is. He is right, one should have confidence, but there will always be doubt and should always be doubt. It's not confidence in logic that's the problem. People feel perfectly comfortable with their logic when they decide to believe what they believe however blindly. Their logic guides them to trust the seemingly better logic of others.
To have logic complete, one must take into account emotion and every other bit of faulty programming to override it, which means there is every point in talking about everything that isn't already believed because the programming has yet to update. Logic is the only freedom from programming? Logic is part of the programming; so there is still no freedom.
The very argument is based in fear of some sort or another; troubles and emotions stirring that have probably been repressed; whereas you show yours openly even while still being afraid because he's seemingly arguing against you because his thoughts are slightly off-kilter.
As for Omniscience; I don't believe the idea to be at all implausible. We only ever know what we need to know when we need to know it, though. The concept of a being with omniscience; a greater consciousness; isn't so silly. The idea that that idea is silly is based on another idea we have that if we can't do it, nothing else can; which has gotten more than a few people into some really tight spots.. **
1459 |
1460 |
1461 |
This is simple guys.
Is nothing something?
It has been proposed that such »maybe be« true.
If that is the case, then the very essence of logic is doubtful, »not-A ?= A«. If one doubts that not-A is NOT-A, then nothing said changes anything. No confidence can be gained from anything. And in a state of no-confidence, rational decisions cannot be made and the person becomes nothing as well (which seems to be the intent driving such thoughts).
RM is solely about finding what it is that one CAN have 100% confidence in. Any fool can doubt all things for all of their short lives.
Is 2+2=4 ??
»Well, I don't know really. It might, might not. We really don't know anything for sure.« - Because »we« are absolute sheepish morons. **
|
1462 |
James,
I agree completely as far as the Physical Particle is concerned but not completely with the explanation of the Communal particle.
A communal particle or community does not necessarily has an enemy to survive. Theoritally, it can survive without it also, though cannot expand.
An invidual human is also some sort of communal particle but it can survive without an enemy. **
1463 |
1464 |
1465 |
Nietzsche says the world is willpower and nothing aside. **
1466 |
I personally blame the aliens. Those bastards! **
1467 |
Arminius wrote:
»That does not correspond to what life experience teaches. Life experience teaches that an enemy is necessary to survive. (Compare all living beings.) If a living being, especially a human being, survives without an enemy, there is no expanding, as you rightly suggested, and if there is no expanding, then in the long run (in the long run!) there is no life anymore. In the long run living groups (for example: packs, prides), especially human groups (for example: tribes, communes) decline and die out, if they have no enemy. They die out because of too much energy, wealth, hedonism, "individualism" and other nihilisms, and one of them is the ism of having no enemy, world peace, universal peace ... and so on. ** **
The commonly known psychology that battles and enemies retard the developing mind of a child shows that what you are saying is wrong. **
1468 |
1469 |
|
1470 |
Your circular reasoning makes sense thus, but it is an ellipse no? The viscousness of the circle sucks in more information but gathers it in it's hungry mouth of a singularity, and seems to swallow it whole. But is this what happens? **
|
1471 |
Arminius wrote:
»... disproportionate and thus wrong/false ...« ** **
Can you say more about your use of the word »thus« here? What are these things disproportionate too, and why does it follow from that that it's wrong? If a family serves dinner proportional to the size of each family member (so big Jamie the football star gets more than little Elmer who is 3), the distribution would disproportionate relative to human-ness (which would dictate exactly equal servings). Why is either distribution false/wrong as a result? **
1472 |
Black means »no light/color«
Zero means »no quantity«
Nothing means »no-thing«
Existence means »thingness«
No-existence means »no-thingness«.
and thus,
Nothingness means no-existence. **
Does your »nothingness« have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there? **
1473 |
|
1474 |
Arminius wrote:
»You can also say (for exampe):
The color of my pullover is black.« ** **That is why one must choose his language and stick with it. Do not use one language if the other person is using the same words for a different language. What language is chosen is arbitrary as long as all parties agree to use the same meanings for the associated words. Be consistent. And a language is merely an arbitrary set of chosen definitions.
Arminius wrote:
»Zero means not the pure quantity, but quantity or not quantity in the sense of a special case.
Existence doesn't merely mean thingness, but being, namely both real being and ideal being.« ** **That is Your language. **
In my language;
zero
n, pl -ros or -roes
1. (Mathematics) the symbol 0, indicating an absence of quantity or magnitude; nought. Former name: cipher
2. (Mathematics) the integer denoted by the symbol 0; nought
3. (Mathematics) the cardinal number between +1 and -1
4. nothing; nilnoth·ing·ness (nthng-ns)
n.
1. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
2. Empty space; a void.
3. Lack of consequence; insignificance.con·se·quence (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.Thus a »Lack of Consequence« is a Lack of Affect (or Effect). **
James S. Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Does your 'nothingness' have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there? **That's not my nothingness because I have not any.« ** **
How would you know? **
If you are a »Nothingness Agnostic«, then you cannot say that »nothingness« represents something that you believe exists and yet has no affect (that would be a »Nothingness Theist«). **
1475 |
Arminius wrote:
»Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!« ** **
Can you explain this more? Sounds like you're saying that if each set of parents has 2, and only 2, children--no exceptions--the gap between the rich and the poor will be minimized (or 3 and only 3 children, or 4 and only 4... point is: no diversity in the number of children). How will that minimize the gap between the rich and the poor? **
1476 |
I'm still not understanding how »wrong/false« follows from any of these »disproportions«. If you don't mind, I'd like to take (1.) as an example so that I can see what you mean by fleshing out one of your claims. **
You seem to be talking about the »input of machines«, and that the input of machines is somehow disproportionate to the input of humans. I assume you mean something like that each machine inputs more than each human, so that the input-per-individual ratio is much higher for machines than for humans, and thus disproportionate. Is that right? If so, why should that be »wrong/false«? **
It seems clear that when it comes to printing pages out from a computer, the input from a machine (a computer printer) is going to be greater than the input from a human stenciling in block letters. **
Why does that result produce a moral or practical wrong, or a falsity? **
1477 |
1478 |
Do you know of anything else that you BELIEVE exists and also BELIEVE has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever? **
1479 |
|
1480 |
1481 |
1482 |
1483 |
1484 |
1485 |
|
1486 |
1487 |
Arminius wrote:
»We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can control prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called experts (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to control the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to control the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. "individualism", bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.« ** **
Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don't see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer. **
1488 |
Arminius wrote
»Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.« ** **
Interestingly, you are now »taking my words«.
Yes, multi-money is the way to go wherein there are different kinds of money that can only be used for specific purposes. It would be a bit like food stamp cards that can't be used for other things, but not so particular as that.
Life fundamentally requires 2 things;
1) Awareness
2) Understanding
3) InfluenceThose are what all money by EACH person should be used for. And the objective is to keep the three balanced, never too much of one, else the entire group is lost. So spend money to gain awareness. Spend money to gain understanding. And spend money to gain influence. But keep them proportional, never more influence that awareness or understanding.
By having three separate economies, the three are more confined to being proportional. **
|
1489 |
Just to show you how religious sciencism has become, yet another »science« forum has refused any discussion of this paradox whatsoever. They discuss the Twins Paradox and a couple of others, because those can be resolved, but not the Stopped Clock Paradox. The report excusing the forbidding of the topic was simply, »It was denied because it's just more relativity-denialist pseudoscience/flamebait.«
All hail to the Holy Word of Sciencism!!
»Speak no evil«. **
1490 |
1491 |
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new »human species«).« ** **
Huh? That makes no sense. Reducing the number of children in a family means more resources are freed up to be spent on other things--even for the rich--and somehow by freeing up these resource, the rich end up getting richer more slowly? And this slowing of getting richer happens only for the rich? Huh?
(I'm not even going to ask about the »new human species« thing). **
If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer. **
1492 |
|
1493 |
I believe that you are misinterpreting the English.
When I say, »the two things are identical«, I mean that there are two separate things that have all of the same properties and to the same degree. I do not mean that the two things are one and the same thing (»same identity«).
Homogeneity involves many locations of similar substance. At each location there is a »different identity« of substance, but the properties of the substance are »identical«, meaning that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart except for their location. And »infinitely identical« means that there truly is absolutely no distinction to be found between the two locations within the substance, but the locations are still a different »identity«. **
1494 |
Well, that being the case, I think that in German, I mean "gleich" referring to each thing having the very same properties and to the same degree as each other = »homogeneous«.
So if that is correct, my question is still,
»Why can't each point in space have the exact same properties to the exact same degree as all others?« **
1495 |
But what is preventing it from being that way? **
1496 |
That's what I mean. And don't say that it is because »the word identical means ... whatever .... I am not talking about the words, but the issue of infinite similarity. **
1497 |
Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity? **
1498 |
Idioticidioms wrote:
»Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?« **
Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.
Arminius wrote:
»According to your »RM:AO« existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.« ** **
Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
»According to...«, but you aren't certain? Seems like it. **
Idioticidioms wrote:
»Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?« **
... same issue.»Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?« **
Logic dictates that they are the same thing. They don't »derive it«, it is a matter of definitions.
Absolute greatness and absolute smallness are inverse concepts. Mathematically represented by a »division«.And btw, I have been waiting (for quite some time - years) for someone to bring up the one small »trick« to this issue. There is more to be considered. I have been disappointed that no one has discovered it. But such is the way of the today's world. **
James S. Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:
»If every infinitesimal deviates by absolutely zero from its predecessor, then the accumulative deviation is still zero.
Or?« **
Something that the world of mathematics seems to have overlooked;
Absolute infinity cannot logically exist physically nor conceptually, »you can always add 1«.
For the exact same reason, absolute zero cannot exist physically nor conceptually... for qualities.Absolute infinity is a conceptual impossibility.
Absolute zero is exactly equal to 1 / (absolute infinity) = an irrational concept.One can have absolutely zero of a quantity. But one cannot have absolutely zero of a quality.
Potential, such as an electric potential, is a quality, not a quantity.
The reason that math runs across problems with infinite and infinitesimal concerns is that math is all about quantities, and only partially applicable to qualities (good for quantitative estimations).
Quantum physics is the ontology of a quantized reality and is a logically broken ontology, but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful for many kinds of quantitative estimations of reality. Classical physics was about qualitative reality, but at that time made the understandable error of including »rigid bodies«, quantitative entities. So Classical physics was a logically broken ontology also.
Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology has no quantitative entities... no fixed quantities, including »absolute zero«. Even the things that I refer to as »points in space« can only logically exist as a changing of location, infinitesimal smears.
RM:AO wrote: An afflate is a small formless portion of a totally pure ever changing, ever yielding substance (Affectance). Actual things such as particles can only emerge due to such constant and chaotic giving up of influence, not taking such as to maintain anything. Affectance is »bitless«, void of individuality within. It merely varies in degree of pure changing potential.
I might add that value is an issue of quality, not quantity.
And thus Value Ontology must remain quantitiless, else also be logically invalid, aka »broken ontology, BO«.And perhaps a couple of illustrations will help;
In that pic, you can see that the distance from B to E is always going to be half of the distance from C to D. No matter how tall the triangle is, B-E must always be 1/2 of C-D.
But what happens when we gradually reduce the height of CD through absolute zero;
The entire time DC is being reduced, EB remains at exactly 1/2. But somehow, magically at exactly absolute zero the number suddenly changes for that single point. Either the distance EB instantly becomes exactly equal to DC or, defying logic, EB is only half of absolute zero. Either case is irrational.
In professional mathematics, the term »0/n« is undefined and the term »n/0« is indeterminate. Neither case makes rational sense.
So where does that leave the absolutely straight line concept? - Irrational, an oxymoron. It is an issue of ontology and the fact of it plays into Relativity, Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Physics, and Affectance. **
1499 |
I assume that you are familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno was saying the same thing that I am. **
Distance is a qualia that is infinitely divisible. If you look at the distance between yourself and the doorway and realize that you would have to get half way to the door before you could get to 3/4 distance before you got to 5/8th before you got to 11/16th before ... ..., you could never get to the doorway.
Thus there can never be absolute zero distance between you and the door, because absolute zero doesn't exist ... unless you resolve Zeno's paradox.
Affectance is also infinitely divisible. Thus Affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason, but in the case of Affectance, the solution to Zeno's paradox does not apply. **
|
1500 |
Zeno's Paradox(es).
But why doesn't it apply to the reduction of Affectance?
Why can't Affectance ever get to zero? **
1501 |
1502 |
Actually, H.G. Wells introduced the term back in 1940, The New World Order.
Many have talked of it since. And as usual, the conspiracy theorists were right (again). **
1503 |
The »small trick« that I mentioned earlier is that absolute zero can only exist by one of the following means;
1) in the imagination, such as an average or the non-existence of a mentally defined object.
2) by dividing a quantity by anything infinitely larger (or multiplying by anything infinitely smaller). **Yes, and what the most people you asked overlooked was the mathematical aspect (=> 2) because they were too much engaged in your RM:AO, in metaphysics, in ontology, in definitional logic ..., and therefore they overlooked and afterwards didn't mention the mathematical aspect.
To have infinite homogeneity or infinite similarity, there must be infinite similarity between every point in the universe. Using a Cartesian system, there are 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points in the entire universe. To have absolutely zero affectance in the universe (zero existence) would require that all of those points be infinitely similar.
If we assign an affectance value of X to a point in space, every other point must be exactly equal to X. Each point has the possibility of being anywhere from 0 to infinite in its value. So the possibility of another point being that same X is 1/infinity. »1/infinity« is one infinitesimal, »0+«, not zero. So the possibility of merely two points being exactly similar still isn't zero. So at this point, we can't say that there is no possibility of the universe being infinitely homogeneous.
If we consider another point, our possibility of all 3 of them being exactly similar is one 1/infinity times 1/infinity, or;
P = 0+^2, an infinitely smaller possibility of the 3 points being exactly similar... but still not exactly zero.But then, the universe isn't made of merely a few points. The Cartesian model allows for 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points. So the possibility becomes;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before ... but still not exactly zero.So far, we used the standard Cartesian model of a universe to define our infinitesimal. But the truth is that even within the space of one infinitesimal, there is yet another infinite number of points. So a dimensional line would actually have, not infinity^2 points as the standard would imply, but rather infinity^3 points and 3/4*Pi*infinity^9 points throughout. That changes our possibility considerably;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^9 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.
But why stop at merely allowing a line to have infinity^3 points? Why not infinity^4 or infinity^78? The truth is that there is no limit to how many points we can assign to a line, so lets just call it »n«, yielding;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^n - 1), where "n" can be anything.But as long as n is any number, the possibility will still not be absolutely zero. And the truth is that n can be all but »absolute infinity«. So, let's limit n to »the largest possible number« and call it »Largest«.
Now we have the equation;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1), as the possibility of all points being exactly similar.And since "0+" merely means "1/infinity", we can rewrite the equation as;
P = 1/infinity^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1)But how can we have infinity raised to the Largest possible number without it being larger than the Largest possible? It is an impossible number. So what we have deduced is that in order to get the possibility of all points in the universe having exactly similar affect value there must be a number that is larger than the Largest possible. And there isn't one.
Thus, the possibility of all points in the universe being exactly similar is;
P = 1/(an impossibly large number) = Absolute Zero. **
James S. Saint wrote:
And that is how you discover that the universe has absolutely zero possibility whatsoever of not existing at any time. The universe could never have begun to exist because it could never have not existed in the first place. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nor can the universe suffer »entropy death« and the thought of such is merely a mild form of terrorism. **
1504 |
Arminius wrote:
»H. G. Wells was inaugurated.« ** **
Inaugurated as what?
And no, I never read the book.
But have seen the films. **
1505 |
1506 |
==>
|