No they don't. Some descriptions of phenomena are consensually more useful (in terms of prediction and control) than others in particular contexts. No description is any closer to a nebulous 'reality' than any other. (Nietzsche). The 'reality debate' is rejected as futile by Pragmatists like Rorty. — fresco

there’s over 21 different interpretations of QM, not because they are all true, but only because so called “philosophers” like you refuse to accept the existence of a non-spatial aspect to existence. hence the reason that still, after a hundred years, the prevailing metaphysical paradigm is still materialistic. Thomas Kuhn was right in his scientific revolutions; and so was Planck saying that “new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Stopped perpetuating falsehoods to support your preconceived bias.

That seems to me something like Vedanta, or that aspect of German idealism which is similar to it, such as Fichte’s ‘absolute ego’. Regrettably I can’t see a justification for that notion especially depicted in such summary form. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is similar to Husserl’s “Transcendental Ego,” in essence, the perceiver of the perceiver of your thoughts, which is your “true Self” is beyond apace, and this is clear to see when you discover that’s its re source of the will and when you enact it while thinking and change your context in thought, you are willingly changing the patterns in which your neurons fire, and this process is a process which extends from the quantum substratum to the perceptible thought and sound inside our conscious awareness. If the Self is not outside of space, this change in context in thought would be an effect of a prior material cause and our wills could not then be free.

there are many justifications for this. if it were not true that the causal chain which supports hard determinism were not broken inside our minds, it would be impossible to experience silence of mind, and also, if we even existed as a self, we would be, not the active agents of our will, but the passive watchers of it. it’s quite clear, phenomenologically speaking, that we are the active agents of our will, so it must be the case that it is both beyond space and not bound by the causal chain.

How does your philosophical evangelism which relies on classical set theory, reconcile with aspects of QM in which classical set theory is inapplicable ?Even Einstein had trouble with that one ! David Bohm tried going down Einstein's 'underlying order' suggestion, but he was sidelined by most of the profession as being 'a mystic'.

It seems to me that your one-liner about 'philosophy being in a dark place' is merely a fear of being forced to swim without a traditional buoyancy aid. — fresco

I’m an ubermensch and a mystic, not a Christian, and especially not an evangelist. you clearly don’t understand the difference, probably because you really know nothing of the position that you criticize and you just default to the materialistic interpretation of everything out of spite or ignorance. see how you without thinking criticized mysticism? this is like the politicians criticizing left wing politics; they do so to keep people from becoming one, why? because then they cannot convince them that it’s rational to become anything in life or to not have a knowledge of being itself. they can then be controlled ideologically just like you are; a little puppet with strings!

ZFC only exists to avoid the paradox created by Russell’s Paradox, not there’s only a problem with Russell’s Paradox if the set of all sets doesn’t have ontological value, or rather, that the ground of being itself downs both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect; but it does, you see, you just have to be intelligent enough to see why. I’ve solved it, of course. I know the essence of the set of all sets. you’ll have to discover why it’s true for yourself or read my work when I release it to the public.

And for the record. Traditional philosophy isn’t philosophy. It’s a last ditch effort to save materialism and atheism. It’s hilarious to watch. Such fools; they same can be said for nearly all of humanity.

Hi Fresco, I think I remember you from another forum - long, long ago — Wayfarer

Terrapin Station version one million

" I’m an ubermensch and a mystic".....:grin:

Thankyou for explaining why are all wasting our time with you !

Greetings Wayfarer. You correct about 'mental image' and 'concept'. Indeed Rorty argues that Western philosophy has suffered from 'predominance of visualization' inherited from the Greeks.

Modern scientific discoveries in particle physics support the existence of a non-local substratum to reality, — TheGreatArcanum

What would a "non-local substratum" be? The substratum isn't located where the substratum is?

Thankyou for explaining why are all wasting our time with you ! — fresco

You're the one quoting "Rorty;" loser...stop wasting our time. One cannot be both a philosopher and an anti-mystic. those who aren't mystics and call themselves philosophers are just playing pretend.

What would a "non-local substratum" be? The substratum isn't located where the substratum is? — Terrapin Station

it's pure subjectivity. it exists everywhere that existence is.

The substratum is everywhere that existence is? What's "non-local" about it?

it's in time, but not in space. not time in the relative sense, but time in the non-relative sense.

The substratum is everywhere, but not in space? So if we point to a spatial location, the substratum isn't there, even though it's everywhere. Is that right?

it is everywhere in space because the spatial is a subset of the non-spatial; so it must be there in one sense and not there in another in the sense that it cannot be measured.

It's not in space, and it's everywhere in space (as well as time, but only in the "non-relative" sense), because the spatial is a subset of the non-spatial, and this amounts to non-locality.

Good work.

what i'm saying is that relative time has no effect on its essence; and that both relative time and space are subsets of it, meaning that the relative is contingent upon the existence of the non-relative and non-spatial, but that the converse isn't true. It's very easy to understand.

"it" is "non-local substratum"? That's what I'm asking you about. I'm asking you what "non-local substratum" would amount to. I don't know how we can talk about the things having or not having an effect on the "essence" of a "non-local substratum" when it's not even clear what a "non-local substratum" would refer to.

that's for you me to know and you to figure out; that is, what it refers to. when i say pure subjectivity, what do I mean? what is necessary for the existence of subjectivity? where is the evidence that subjectivity requires the existence of the body?

that's for you me to know and you to figure out; — TheGreatArcanum

If you're interested in someone like me reading past what I'm quoting, it's for you to explain. You're not required to explain things, of course, but don't expect me to bother reading what appears to be endless gobbledygook in lieu of an explanation.

Re "pure subjectivity" I have no idea. I'd have to ask you. I have no idea what work the word "pure" is supposed to be performing.

What's necessary for the existence of subjectivity? The existence of a mind. Where is the evidence that mind requires body? (What does this have to do with anything else we were talking about, by the way?) All evidence we have so far, including our own and others behavior, including how brain injuries correlate with mental/behavioral changes, including things like fMRI imaging and its correlation to mental phenomena/behavior, and on and on, suggests that mind is a property of functioning brains.

I think that the object itself, its essence and all of its changing qualities, are subsets of an 'original concept' which has become subjected to chaos, in which case, there is a dialectic between the concepts presented to the object by nature, and the original concept of the object. Man conceives of objects, he assigns words to them, to both objects and abstract relationships between objects, and those words refer to the essences of those objects; and the closer that those definitions become to the 'original concept' that is, the original essence or 'reason' for the existence of the thing, which is synonymous with its function in nature, the higher his level of knowledge is raised. That is to say that ignorance has its origin in the difference between man's conception of the essence of a thing and its original essence, as it were, and if there is too great a distinction between the two in one's mind, one believes, not in truths, but in falsehoods, and one doesn't have knowledge, but opinion. Associatively, wisdom, as distinguished from knowledge is a correct apprehension of, not the essences of particular things, but the essence of existence itself.

I'm not entirely an essentialist, because I don't believe that all original concepts are eternal, but only that some are, like specifically, Aristotle's laws of thought, which I assign actual ontological value (essence) to. — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts are formed from perceptions. Perceptions are prior to conceptions. Perceptions are brute and vivid, while conceptions are recalled by the will and are less detailed than their related perceptions.

A conception can't be a fundamental essence of reality because they are composed of the more fundamental perceptions of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. The most fundamental essence of reality, from the perspective of a non-omniscient mind, are colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. The aggregation of these fundamental essences into objects in the mind when I look at the world is a brute process. Objects are axiomatic in that the fundamental essences are not willed into these forms like I can will an imaginary object (concepts) in my mind. They are forced and then I form concepts in order to categorize my perceptions into something useful for survival and pleasure.

you must distinguish between mental images and concepts which do not require images. that is to say that the primordial conceptions are the concepts of unity, persistence and difference and that, these were formerly intuitions before they became mental abstractions.

Then how do you know that you have a concept in your mind? What form does a concept take for you to be aware of it and communicate it?

it doesn't take a form; take for example the concept of unity; which follows directly from my own intuition and presence, or the concept of difference, which follows from my intuitive understanding of the succession of time...these don't require images.

At least half of the time when people use "unity" in a philosophical context I still have no idea what they're referring to, exactly. It's typically very ambiguous and people say things like "that's for me to know and you to find out" when you ask them to clarify.

In other words, "unity" and "difference" take the form of words, which are colors and shapes or sounds, that you learned through perception. These scribbles and sounds are meaningless until used to refer to some perception of the world.

you must close your eyes, silence your mind, relax your focus, and then perceive the persistence of your own existence. that's unity. a million billion parts working together in harmony...it is the flow of intuition through time. it cannot be measured with a stick, only with awareness. only through internal observation can the concept of unity be truly understood.

no, they have their origin in intuition, the past, and the present, as distinguished from each other in awareness. no colors or objects are necessary.

How do you distinguish anything in awareness? What are the fundamental distinctions?

using time, the law of non-contradiction, as a bridge. that is a bridge between being (the present) and non-being (the past).

Americans are so lost.

Are you an internet bot, or a human being?

through the intuition of difference, the concept of unity becomes known.

a million billion parts working together in harmony... — TheGreatArcanum

If you're just using it to refer to things interacting with each other that's simple enough.