• ucarr
    1.2k
    I would never attempt to restrict your freedom to express yourself, no matter how much I might disagree with the focus of your expression. I might be frustrated that I cannot change your mind, but I will defend your freedom of expression as long as you do not incite violence.universeness

    :up: :up:
    I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric.universeness



    I too think human breathing and movement are apt subjects for development. Do you dismiss yoga?
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Do you dismiss yoga?ucarr

    No, but my unfit old body does, as does my lack of motivation to make my body more physically fit.
  • ucarr
    1.2k


    If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof, c2008

    In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. — Wikipedia

    Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

    I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence. Here's my narrative:

    Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

    Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

    So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.

    Let me see your counter-narrative.
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.ucarr
    You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". You're objecting to a strawman, ucarr, rather than what I wrote.

    To wit: IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

    Is this paraphrase any clearer?
  • ucarr
    1.2k
    To wit: IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

    Is this paraphrase any clearer?
    180 Proof

    Your paraphrase, like your original statement, comes across to me loudly and clearly. What's not clear is whether or not I rationally interpret what you communicate clearly.

    Here's how I understand your communication:

    The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.

    Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?

    Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

    I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence.
    ucarr

    Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, if, as I believe, they are pertinent to your argument, then you need to answer my questions because supervenience across sets is a cognitive reality.
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    Here's how I understand your communication:

    The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.
    ucarr
    :up:

    Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?
    Yes, they are non sequiturs.

    Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, ...
    I don't share this view. To transcend a fact isn't remotely "similar" to a property or process supervening on/over a fact.
  • ucarr
    1.2k
    You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F".180 Proof

    Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:
    IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.180 Proof

    then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2). How is it that my interpreting and ascribing your two named attributes for membership in TF-set is erroneous? To prove your point, I think you need to show a break in my chain of inference. It won't do for you to merely declare such a break exists. You must write a statement of symbolic logic that shows this break. You frequently declare non sequitur without showing it via your own explicit, written chain of inference. Mere declarations won’t do.

    While you're at the task of showing instead of merely declaring, you also need to show us in an explicit, written chain of inference what is your underlying logic supporting your declaration that: your IFF... THEN correlative conjunction, in concluding "there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules" is an unbroken chain of inference.

    To transcend a fact isn'tcremotely "similar" to a property or process supervening on a fact.180 Proof

    How is it they're dissimilar? Can you describe with explicit details how they're dissimilar? Can you buttress your description with an example? Can you buttress your example with its logical correlative?
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    You have quoted my demonstration; show it is invalid as is or concede the point. I've no interest in trying to persuade you of anything, ucarr.
  • ucarr
    1.2k


    If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously.180 Proof

    You have quoted my demonstration; show it is invalid as is or concede the point. I've no interest in trying to persuade you of anything, ucarr.180 Proof

    After quoting your demonstration, I presented an argument based upon my reading of your demonstration:

    Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

    Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

    So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.
    ucarr

    You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". You're objecting to a strawman, ucarr, rather than what I wrote.180 Proof

    After you dismiss my reading of your demonstration, I present a defense of my reading:

    Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

    IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.
    — 180 Proof

    then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2).
    ucarr

    I'm not asking you to persuade me. I'm asking you to convince me with a refutation of my defense.
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    :roll: You've only defended your own misreading ()¹ – res ipsa loquitur. Again, ucarr, invalidate what I actually argue¹ or concede the point.



    .
  • ucarr
    1.2k
    You've only defended your own misreading (↪180 Proof)¹ – res ipsa loquitur. Again, ucarr, invalidate what I actually argue¹ or concede the point.180 Proof

    Your above statement, like previous, similar statements, merely DECLARES that my reading is a misreading. You have yet to PROVE it's a misreading.

    IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules...180 Proof

    As I've already stated and you've already affirmed: per the above quote, IFF membership in TF-set requires that "X = transcendent" and "X = fact," THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules. This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive. Since your conclusion (in spite of your Latin quote) is not a self-evident truth, an extrinsic, formal proof is required to establish its truth.

    Here's an example of what might be entailed in a proof of my understanding being a misreading: since, per the rules of TF-set, X = transcendent and X = fact, then fact = transcendent. There must exist TF-facts for TF-set to have members. However, "fact = transcendent" is false.

    Now we see that proof of your "If...then" claim requires proof "fact = transcendent is false." is also true. If you have evidence TFs don't exist, you must cite this evidence.

    Following my reading of your statement, I attack your premise TFs don't exist:

    Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

    Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

    So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.
    ucarr

    The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty.

    If you have logic_evidence that prevents sets from having probable members, then you must cite it.

    TFs as a logical possibility, like time running in both directions as a logical possibility, so far has no consensus regarding empirical, substantiating evidence. In the case of time, no one counts the evidence in absentia as refutation. Why should we not think likewise regarding TFs?
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive.ucarr
    :rofl:
  • ucarr
    1.2k


    This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive.ucarr

    Yes. My interpretation of your declaration and to this I repost your affirmation:

    Here's how I understand your communication:

    The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.
    — ucarr

    :up:
    180 Proof

    You've now read my denial of its truth content:

    The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty.ucarr

    Now you must refute it, or lose our debate by default.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.