• SophistiCat
    528
    Yeah, part of what I'd like to argue is that this kind of approach to things simply is idealism par excellence, and an insidious one at that, insofar as it couches itself in the language of the ‘physical’, despite being a metaphysical (in the pejorative sense) chimera through and through. It always amazes me that those who hew to this kind of view don’t recognise just how shot-through with theology it is. And I don’t mean this as a cheap-shot (like ‘oh science is just the new religion'), but in a properly philosophical key: it shares with theology its ‘emanative’ logic wherein, to botch Plotinus, everything flows from the One and returns to the One - and where the ‘flow’ is just so much detritus and debris. What you call reductive physicalism mirrors, exactly, ancient theological tropes and, from my perspective, is more or less indistinguishable from them.StreetlightX

    I am not bothered by distasteful associations (egad! Theology!) I believe that we should judge ideas on their own merit. Besides, in all likelihood, theological ideas get their inspiration from some of the same intuitions about nature that give rise to materialistic ideas. And those intuitions are realist at their core. I am convinced that, whatever ideology we outwardly proclaim, whatever stuff we say the world is made of and however it is parceled out, inwardly we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires. We have some leeway in how we choose to conceptualize it, but there are strong constraints on those conceptualizations that are not up to us to choose. And that is the only ontology that matters. We can quibble about whether chairs or wave-functions "really exist," but that's just semantics. What matters is that there is this recalcitrant something that we all have to acknowledge, on pain of undermining all our empirical knowledge.

    Where I believe both the faithful and at times the materialists, especially philosophically less sophisticated scientists, sin again reason is in jumping to strong metaphysical commitments without proper warrant. But in resisting unwarranted metaphysical commitments we can only go so far in the opposite direction. We can allow for a plurality of conceptualizations, but we have to acknowledge that these conceptualizations are all subject to the same constraints. They are different maps of the same territory, and therefore they cannot be truly independent. Then the question legitimately arises: what is the nature of their interdependence?

    Reductionism proposes a hierarchical structure of asymmetric dependence - by way of nomological reduction or supervenience (at the very least) - with the TOE at the top. This idea does have some empirical corroboration, but perhaps not enough. Above all, this should be treated as, at best, a provisional conclusion, not as an a priori metaphysical assumption, as often appears to be the case. Moreover, physicalist reductionism edges into the ethical territory when it deprecates non-fundamental conceptualizations, like for example the mind, as less than real, superfluous, causally inert - all the more reason for caution and skepticism.

    As for (traditional Christian) theology and supernaturalism in general, it simply doesn't trust matter to behave (as @schopenhauer1 puts it) on its own. The First Cause, the Prime Mover - which you analogize with the TOE - has to be some anthropomorphic agent, which, unlike matter, is not entirely open to empirical examination.
  • eodnhoj7
    148


    In non Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate is negated. This alters the understanding of a "plane" which is a two dimensional construct, from the Euclidean understanding of a plane. It does not change the definition of "line" (1d), it changes the way that one dimension is related to another dimension, as a plane. It is a different definition of "plane".

    That one dimension may be related to another dimension through various means (different geometries), and the correct way has not been firmly established, supports my claim that there is a degree of unintelligibility to the relationship between one dimension and another.


    The parrel postulate lead to an open ending to euclidian geometry, through non-euclidian, where the line can have multiple definitions as it is defined through multiple frameworks that are connected through eachother.

    The line is subject to the fallacy of equivocation outside of any one framework.

    No, as I explained earlier, an infinite number of 0d points cannot construct a 1d line. A segment of line is what lies between two points, the medium between points. There is a fundamental incompatibility between 0d and 1d which makes it impossible that a line is composed of points, it is composed of line segments which are marked by points. 0d provides absolutely no spatial extension, while 1d "line" implies spatial extension. Contrary to what you claim above, a line and a point are fundamentally incompatible and one cannot be reduced to the other.

    It's not that I don't understand your argument, but that I reject it as invalid. A point marks a place on a line. A line is not made of points. That is your invalid assumption, and why I reject your argument.


    You are not aware of what you are arguing:

    https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1293086/how-to-prove-that-a-straight-line-is-an-infinite-set-of-points

    A thesaurus? Continuous means unbroken, uninterrupted, connected. A unit is an individual thing, bounded and complete. Therefore an interruption is implied between one unit an another. When you say that a "succession of units" is continuous, "continuous" is predicated of "succession". But that such a succession (the activity of one succeeding the other) is continuous is just an assertion. There is nothing inherent within a multitude of units to validate your claim of continuity. Nor is there anything inherent within the concept of succession to validate your claim that a succession is continuous. Therefore you have simply predicated "continuous" of "succession", for absolutely no reason, other than to produce an argument from this axiom. That's begging the question.



    Infinite interruption is no longer interuption as it is not finite. All continuums, as infinite progressions and regression, are both infinite and one.

    All axioms exist through argument, such as those founded in geometric axioms (which you are evidently ignorant of). Proof is structure, structures is the repitition of variables resulting in symmetry as unity.

    Reread the argument I presented, you clear do not understand it, nor the axioms of geometry you are arguing.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k

    The cited proof demonstrates that there are infinitely many points on a line. It does not prove that a line is composed of points. My argument is that a line is not composed of points, because a line is what exists between points. And my argument holds, despite the fact that there are infinitely many points on a line. This just means that a line is divisible into an infinite number of segments.

    Reread the argument I presented, you clear do not understand it, nor the axioms of geometry you are arguing.eodnhoj7

    You've already presented your argument over and over, so many times, and I've explained why it is unsound. You make fundamental errors such as assuming that pi is a line, and that "linear" means that the thing referred to as linear is a line. You argue not from mathematical axioms, but from a misrepresentation of mathematical axioms. So your argumenta are completely nonsensical.
  • macrosoft
    381
    And those intuitions are realist at their core. I am convinced that, whatever ideology we outwardly proclaim, whatever stuff we say the world is made of and however it is parceled out, inwardly we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires. We have some leeway in how we choose to conceptualize it, but there are strong constraints on those conceptualizations that are not up to us to choose. And that is the only ontology that matters. We can quibble about whether chairs or wave-functions "really exist," but that's just semantics. What matters is that there is this recalcitrant something that we all have to acknowledge, on pain of undermining all our empirical knowledge.SophistiCat

    We might also look at the gap between conceptualizations and a more ordinary sense of speeding trucks that might crush us, holes we might fall into, ice that we might slip on...I suspect that (to some degree) this is the dominant 'model'(?) by which other models are judged ultimately.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    We might also look at the gap between conceptualizations and a more ordinary sense of speeding trucks that might crush us, holes we might fall into, ice that we might slip on...I suspect that (to some degree) this is the dominant 'model'(?) by which other models are judged ultimately.macrosoft

    Look at your examples, they are all things which "might" happen. So we look at the world with a view to how we can prevent, or cause, identified future events. This does not jive with Sophisticat's "we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires".

    It appears to me, like there is a deep inconsistency between how we actually live our lives, as if we can prevent or cause future events, and what you call the "dominant model", which produces a form of determinism. The problem being that we model "the world" as independent, "indifferent to our thoughts and desires", but this leaves us outside of the world, and renders the model incapable of representing how our thoughts and desires are actively changing the world. This is why our conceptualizations require that medium, "matter", as the indeterminate part of reality, bridging the gap of hypocrisy between our true perspective in which we act freely in the world influencing the future, and the dominant determinist model of the world.
  • eodnhoj7
    148

    Actually I made a continuous progressive argument, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about it not being in mathematical axioms. In fact not only is it in mathematical axioms (line as infinite points), but these axioms are open to further expansion infinitely while each axiom is determined by the framework of proof which extends from it and not the axiom itself.


    The line as "a injunctive of infinite points" observes the line as composed of infinite lines through these infinite points. The point is a continuum of further points through the line. The line and point alternate between eachother.

    If the line is nor composed of points, but the line is composed of infinite further lines between points, the line is composed of points. You have no argument, you strictly do not understand what you are saying.

    There is no misrepresentation of mathematical axioms, as what you have observed is a misrepresentation. You are pushing a belief system nothing more. All mathematical axioms are given structure by there corresponding proofs. A proof is merely the replication of mathematical axioms into a structure. The axioms only exist is a structure stems form them.

    As observed in the link, there are infinite number of not just proofs for any mathematical system but these proofs as infinite must continue. Proof is continuity. Whatever finite defintion you are looking for is strictly multiple infinities.

    Now relative to pi as a foundation of measurement. Pi can acts as a length of

    Pi = c/d where c is equal to Pi and D is equal to one. The circufermance containing a number of lines equal to Pi observes not the circumferance as a length equal to Pi (and the circumferance is a length...Do you want sources?) But the number of diameters as Pi as 1 line in itself.


    I am arguing from these axioms, as the proof is that these axioms must continually progress as there are infinite proofs for them. You are unaware of what you are arguing.




    Pi as a length results in 1 as a function as stated above.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    In fact not only is it in mathematical axioms (line as infinite points), but these axioms are open to further expansion infinitely while each axiom is determined by the framework of proof which extends from it and not the axiom itself.eodnhoj7

    A line is not composed of infinite points. There are infinite points on a line. Your premise is a misrepresentation, not a mathematical axiom.

    The line as "a injunctive of infinite points" observes the line as composed of infinite lines through these infinite points. The point is a continuum of further points through the line. The line and point alternate between eachothereodnhoj7

    I don't know what you mean by "a injunctive", but the grammar is terrible, so I would be dubious of wherever you got that quote from, as unreliable in educative value.

    If the line is nor composed of points, but the line is composed of infinite further lines between points, the line is composed of points.eodnhoj7

    This is blatant contradiction. "If the line is not composed of points, but... [then] the line is composed of points." That's nothing but nonsense contradiction.

    Pi = c/d where c is equal to Pi and D is equal to one. The circufermance containing a number of lines equal to Pi observes not the circumferance as a length equal to Pi (and the circumferance is a length...Do you want sources?) But the number of diameters as Pi as 1 line in itself.eodnhoj7

    More nonsense. That the numerical value of pi could be given to a length, in no way indicates that pi is a length. That pi is a length is not an accepted axiom. The numerical value of length must be qualified with a unit of measurement. Accepted mathematical axioms clearly indicate that pi is not a unit of measurement
  • macrosoft
    381
    Look at your examples, they are all things which "might" happen. So we look at the world with a view to how we can prevent, or cause, identified future events. This does not jive with Sophisticat's "we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires".Metaphysician Undercover

    I don't see the problem. The ice isn't going to politely melt before I unthinkingly skate on it and break my arm. If I am fixing a roof and tumble off, the ground will not soften as I descend. Or at least I do not live with such expectations, however merely logically possible such things may be. At other times, it's my understanding that people did try to bribe or flatter something like nature. Nature was a personality, mysterious by ultimately 'like us' or a 'subject with feelings' in some way. The de-personalization of nature into a machine is the the ur-model upon which we project more sophisticated scientific models. And these models largely apply in terms of us deciding which goals are possible and how to obtain them --in the 'lifeworld' or the 'basic' 'model' that grounds other modelling in terms of care. Or so I reason.
  • eodnhoj7
    148


    1. A line is an infinite number of points, hence is an infinite number of lines.

    The line as infinite points is the axiomatic definition of a line:

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&sc=1-40&sk=&cvid=C8ED297B32114AA2A7406E89721E7552

    "The totality of the points comprising the line is in any case infinite."

    "This can be proven rigorously, and it's not hard at all. Basically, between any two distinct points on a line there is a third point between these two points (between should not necessarily mean the mid-point on a straight path connecting the points, and this may get a bit tricky, but not too tricky).
    "

    You are not just wrong, but lying if you claim that is the common definition. Change my mind and provide a source.

    On a side note:

    It may be argued the line is a set, however this is not a common mathematical axiom, so don't bother saying it is not a mathematical axiom...I am fully aware of this point as well as all the other "points" you claim.

    2. This is blatant contradiction. "If the line is not composed of points, but... [then] the line is composed of points." That's nothing but nonsense contradiction.

    Its a contradiction because you misrepresented the argument and took the second portion out. Now you are lying.

    If the line is not composed of points, but the line is composed of other lines, then the line must be composed of infinite points.

    3. More nonsense. That the numerical value of pi could be given to a length, in no way indicates that pi is a length. That pi is a length is not an accepted axiom. The numerical value of length must be qualified with a unit of measurement. Accepted mathematical axioms clearly indicate that pi is not a unit of measurement


    If pi is not a length, then neither is 1 units, 2 units, 3 units, etc. considering quantity is a unit.

    The circumferance is a length:

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=circumferance+is+a+length&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=circumferance+is+a+length&sc=6-25&sk=&cvid=C1FA1FB6F46743FE9DD86E053CDFFA91

    It also provides the foundation for the radian in trigonometry as a length:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian



    I rarely make ad-hominums any more, and I understand you do not have to agree with what I am saying, but between misquoting my argument, misquoting sources, and arguing foundations that are not just fake but are illogical I have one insult.

    Now keep in mind, maybe I have been spoiled. Many of the people I have debated, even when they do not understand my argument or I point out deficiencies in theirs are generally kind or at least respectable. So maybe I had it easy as of late.

    Not questioning the established authority is a form of deep cowardice not conducive to anyone who is a philosopher. Questioning does not necessitate either doubt or agreement, but rather an understanding a nature of the framework established.

    So here is my insult, and you will never understand it:

    "I hope you live a long life no different than who you are now."
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    1. A line is an infinite number of points, hence is an infinite number of lines.

    The line as infinite points is the axiomatic definition of a line:

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&sc=1-40&sk=&cvid=C8ED297B32114AA2A7406E89721E7552
    eodnhoj7

    Your cited reference clearly states a line "contains", and a line "has" an infinite number of points. It does not say a line "is" an infinite number of points, as you claim. Do you not recognize a distinction between container and contents, a difference between what something is and what something has?

    Change my mind and provide a source.eodnhoj7

    Learn how to interpret instead of changing words to suit your purpose, then read your own sources.

    If pi is not a length, then neither is 1 units, 2 units, 3 units, etc. considering quantity is a unit.eodnhoj7

    Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..

    So here is my insult, and you will never understand it:

    "I hope you live a long life no different than who you are now."
    eodnhoj7

    If you like me to continue, attacking your faulty arguments, I will. Are you finally noticing the usefulness of my attacks?
  • eodnhoj7
    148
    What attacks? I am building a play pen around a child for it to play in and figure itself out.

    1.) "The totality of the points comprising the line is in any case infinite."

    com·prise
    [kəmˈprīz]
    VERB

    consist of; be made up of.
    "the country comprises twenty states"
    synonyms:
    consist of · be made up of · be composed of · contain · take in · embrace · encompass · incorporate · include · involve · cover · comprehend
    make up; constitute.

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=comprise+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=comprise+definition&sc=8-19&sk=&cvid=8E4BF20B8D3C440A8BF6EAA80CDD05AF
    eodnhoj7
    Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..


    2. Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..


    A 1 foot is contained of 12 inches. It is 1 line composed of 12 lines. The number and line are inseperable.



    3. You can keep flailing around all you want, I don't care either way.
    Metaphysician Undercover
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k

    Here's Euclid's definitions from: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Euclid/Elements.pdf

    1. A point is that of which there is no part.
    βʹ. Γραμμὴ δὲ μῆκος ἀπλατές. 2. And a line is a length without breadth.
    γʹ. Γραμμῆς δὲ πέρατα σημεῖα. 3. And the extremities of a line are points.
    δʹ. Εὐθεῖα γραμμή ἐστιν, ἥτις ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς 4. A straight-line is (any) one which lies evenly with
    σημείοις κεῖται. points on itself.

    Notice, #3. The extremities of a line are points. And, #4, a straight line has "points on itself".

    Whatever makes you think that there is an axiom which states that a line is comprised of points? You are dreaming!
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    The ice isn't going to politely melt before I unthinkingly skate on it and break my arm. If I am fixing a roof and tumble off, the ground will not soften as I descend. Or at least I do not live with such expectations, however merely logically possible such things may be.macrosoft

    The point is that you live acting in such a way as to prevent yourself from breaking your arm on the ice, and to prevent yourself from falling off the roof. Why did you want to go skating, or go on the roof in the first place? And how did you get onto that roof? Don't you know that you intentionally put yourself at risk by doing such things?
  • macrosoft
    381
    The point is that you live acting in such a way as to prevent yourself from breaking your arm on the ice, and to prevent yourself from falling off the roof. Why did you want to go skating, or go on the roof in the first place? And how did you get onto that roof? Don't you know that you intentionally put yourself at risk by doing such things?Metaphysician Undercover

    I don't see how this matters. We take risks in pursuit of our goals. I think the point is whether we think nature is looking out for us our not. Perhaps the existential aspect of the scientific worldview is our faith in the inefficacy of prayer. If we decide to put on a new roof to keep the rain out, we take certain precautions (safety straps) because we don't expect the ground to suddenly become mud and break our fall.

    I'd say that it's this concrete worldly context that mostly informs notions of objectivity. If we imagine the table made of particles/waves, we still vaguely imagine a table-shape. If we 'know better' or think about it more, we can abstract away not only this shape but even our mathematics and waves and particles as indeed just another layer of human significance 'projected' on 'something' --albeit problematically as we abstract away everything intelligible.

    It occurs to me that the thing-in-itself is a kind of direction. Remove the 'subject' as much as possible, etc., starting with the sensual and proceeding to the intellectual. Trying to go all the way leads to absurdities. Does isolating a pure subject in the same way lead to absurdity?
  • eodnhoj7
    148
    Modern Math. So hyperbolic, elliptic, projective, affine, finite, differential, non-euclidian plane, and angle excess geometry are not real if I take only Euclids arguments?

    So if I have infinite lines existing as one line, the line is not composed of infinite points?
  • macrosoft
    381
    To insist on the mediality of all things is to insist that all immidiacy must nonetheless be subject to a minimal medicacy: there is always the traction of time and space, the recalcitrance of matter to have to deal with (the Heraclitian maxim on nature's elusiveness must be read as a materialist maxim par excellence: 'Nature loves to hide').StreetlightX

    In a word then, the materialist insists that the world is medial through and through: everything that is, has a density recalcitrant to all ideal(ized) first principles (arche) and immedial fantasies (God being among them).StreetlightX

    Illuminating OP. I just quoted some passages that especially spoke to me. I associate the 'traction of time' with the non-instanteity of meaning, the way a sentence/meaning needs time. Meaning itself is not immediate. There is also meaning's entanglement with its 'medium' (the written or spoken word.) We push out the air or scratch with a pencil or gently hammer on the keyboard. A perfect separation of meaning from its medium and its compression into an instant functions as a kind of goal, an impossibility that tempts us, perhaps to our benefit at times.

    The 'density recalcitrant to all first principles' recalls something I was exploring in other thread, from a related if not identical angle. An analogy I like is theory trying to capture a set of positive measure in a set of zero measure (a conveniently countable set, say.) Our linguistic know-how is too rich, too flexible, too mostly-automatic to give a finite account of itself. Trapping meaning in an instant or imagining its complete independence from its medium seems like part of that impossible quest.

    As for 'God,' I am open to sophisticated uses of this term. Is there an anti-metaphysical vision of God? An anti-theological vision of God? I don't know. Hegel felt the need to criticize vague notions (anti-notions?) of the absolute in his preface. Do you find it possible that one can use this term and be a materialist in your sense? I can imagine someone contemplating what it is that thrusts against traction and recalcitrance, which would seem to depend on some kind of movement against them. The incarnation myth comes to mind. Can incarnation symbolize materialism even? (I like following the mutation of the Christ image through certain German philosophers. A 'total' incarnation would leave nothing out-of-the-mess behind.)
  • StreetlightX
    3.1k
    The incarnation myth comes to mind. Can incarnation symbolize materialism even?macrosoft

    There have been interesting attempts to claim incarnation from a materialist perspective - Zizek and Virno come to mind - but I generally find the whole theological matrix to be compromised beyond repair. Short of constituting some clever thought-exercises for a bit of intellectual athleticism, I don't really see any reason to do so outside of that. We've had literally millenia of theological wrangling, and it would be nice to proceed with a bit of independence from that whole meilieu. Ray Brassier once put it nicely, if only just a little too strongly:

    "I view this continuing philosophical fascination with monotheism as deeply pernicious and think a moratorium ought to be declared to prevent any further ‘God talk’ by philosophers. I do not think it mere coincidence that the critique of scientific rationality in much 20th century philosophy goes hand in hand with a revival of theological themes. Religion obviously satisfies deep-seated human needs, but it has been a cognitive catastrophe that has continually impeded epistemic progress — contrary to the pernicious revisionism that claims monotheism was always on the side of science and truth. Human knowledge has progressed in spite of religion, never because of it. Philosophers should simply have no truck with it." (source)

    (Too strongly because I think the study of theology and its concepts can be very useful for triangulating one's position; one ought to know the enemy least one becomes them).

    A perfect separation of meaning from its medium and its compression into an instant functions as a kind of goal, an impossibility that tempts us, perhaps to our benefit at times.macrosoft

    I largely agree with the rest, but I would be careful in characterizing the 'kind' of goal this would be. If the thesis of irreducible mediality is right, any such attempt at 'separation' would be detrimental, and not conducive to, well, anything whatsoever. As Derrida might have put it, the desire for pure presence is the desire for death.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    So if I have infinite lines existing as one line, the line is not composed of infinite points?eodnhoj7

    Infinite lines being one line is contradictory, plain and simple. That a line is potentially divisible an infinite number of times, does not mean that the line exists as infinite lines. That would be contradiction, to say that at the same time, one line is many lines.

    The points, which would distinguish the infinite number of shorter lines within the longer line, cannot function as a divisor of the longer line without annihilating the longer line through the act of division. It is impossible by way of contradiction, that the same thing is at the same time, one line and a multitude of lines. So either the points are functioning to divide the line, in which case there is no longer line only an infinity of short lines, or else the points are not "in" the line.

    As I've explained to you, over and over, when we assume the existence of lines and points, we assume that the points are not "in" the line. You use an interpretation which is clearly contradictory, and produce a nonsense argument from that faulty interpretation.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    If we decide to put on a new roof to keep the rain out, we take certain precautions (safety straps) because we don't expect the ground to suddenly become mud and break our fall.macrosoft

    When working on the roof, one uses safety straps to prevent oneself from falling off the roof. No one considers the possibility that the ground might suddenly become soft. So you are just throwing in a red herring here, an unreal, irrelevant thought. The motivating factor in putting on the safety straps is that we believe we can prevent an unwanted occurrence. Therefore we clearly believe that we can have influence over what happens in the future.

    The issue is not whether nature "is looking out for us". The issue is to what extent we have control over nature. So for example, if we had absolute control over nature, nature would be whatever we want it to be. This is similar to the theological position, but the theological way recognizes human deficiency, and places something human-like (God), instead of human beings themselves, as having absolute control over nature. The opposite way, is the determinist way, which would say that nature has complete control over us. The two opposing ways, nature is what we want it to be, and nature forces us to be what we are, are both wrong, so we need a medium, a compromise.

    I'd say that it's this concrete worldly context that mostly informs notions of objectivity. If we imagine the table made of particles/waves, we still vaguely imagine a table-shape. If we 'know better' or think about it more, we can abstract away not only this shape but even our mathematics and waves and particles as indeed just another layer of human significance 'projected' on 'something' --albeit problematically as we abstract away everything intelligible.macrosoft

    The problem here, is that the "scientific way", becomes the way of "we have absolute control over nature", because it develops the attitude that we can conceive of the table in anyway that we want. So long as the mathematics is correct, and the behaviour of the table is well predicted, then we can describe the table in any way at all. There is no such object as "the table" anymore, there is just this or that description of what is going on, and we choose the one we want. Therefore we view nature as being whatever we want it to be.

    It occurs to me that the thing-in-itself is a kind of direction. Remove the 'subject' as much as possible, etc., starting with the sensual and proceeding to the intellectual. Trying to go all the way leads to absurdities. Does isolating a pure subject in the same way lead to absurdity?macrosoft

    Clearly, there are two distinct directions, from two distinct starting points. Each one gets enveloped in problems sending one frustrated toward the other way. But the real problem is in those starting points themselves, the subject and the object, they do not produce sound premises, so they must be dismissed altogether for something different.

    As Derrida might have put it, the desire for pure presence is the desire for death.StreetlightX

    Here you approach the true medium, presence, or the present. This is the only real grounding for the concept "medium", validating it as a true concept, signifying something real, the medium between future and past, the two fundamental aspects of reality. Presentism reduces all to the medium. Then, by making the medium all there is, without the reality of the separated things, future and past, the medium itself becomes meaningless.
  • eodnhoj7
    148
    the point is not defined, except through the line. There is no strictly axiom for the point. A line composed of infinite lines is still one line. It is similar not the same to a set containing infinite numbers, an aleph number, or Cantors work in multiple infinities.

    Actually 1/1/1...= 1. The line is its own standard of measurement, hence when it divides itself it is through itself.

    Show me your source considering this, according to you is a universal axiom, other wise you are pushing your own theory (which is fine) but does not hold according to its own logic.

    Provide a source.
123Next
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.