03 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, but your statement about logic existing 'beyond time and space' also amounts to a just-is argument. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
But that is not an ultimate answer, you have said so yourself a number of times. You have stated that God just is. One of the clever things that Christian Theology (or rather Jewish theology) manages to do is to sound sophisticated and sound like it is answering fundamental questions without actually ever doing so.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadhow about this.
And I suspect that some people find it easier to believe in God simply because they no longer need to be accountable for their own actions. I have found many Christians (not all) do not take accountability for their actions but rather either claim that they no longer matter (as per your 'saved' argument), or that some other entity is to blame (the Devil, ...[text shortened]... n for not believing in God is purely an evidential one ie I see no evidence for his existence.
your brother, father, mother (in short someone you know and love and trust) is accused of murder. the murder weapon is found and it has your loved one fingerprints on it. several other evidence is found, enough to make a jury convict him/her. him/her doesn't have an alibi. but he swears to you he is innocent.
would you believe him? even if he might be guilty and the evidence show him he is? would you rather believe him in spite of that because the alternative is unpleasant with you?
it is the same with god. believing in spite of the evidence(or lack of). only there are no evidence whatsoever. you believe what makes you more comfortable.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't really understand what you mean. I don't even recall making that claim. If I did, I was in error.
Yes, but your statement about logic existing 'beyond time and space' also amounts to a just-is argument. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
My current claim is that logic is not a physical entity and thus is independent of space and time - so too with abstract information.
I remember in the past you once talked about 'Category Errors' and in this case to speak of logic or abstract information having a location in time and space is a category error. How wide is blue? Where is blue? Did blue exist 2000 years ago? Note that that last one is not asking whether any blue object existed, it is asking whether the abstract concept 'blue' existed.
I don't think these are just-is arguments at all as I have not attempted to explain why it is so, I certainly make no claim that there is no reason for it.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd I have no real problem with that. I do however give more respect to those who are honest about it, than those who then feel the need to 'prove' the existence of God and go around inventing 'proofs' with scant regard for logic or common sense. Worst of all are those who will make up any lie they can think of to try and support their beliefs - this is often most obvious when it comes to people who believe that evolution is a threat to their belief system.
it is the same with god. believing in spite of the evidence(or lack of). only there are no evidence whatsoever. you believe what makes you more comfortable.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that's what you said. Please explain how logic can be outside time and space, independently of any thinker.
My current claim is that logic is not a physical entity and thus is independent of space and time - so too with abstract information.
Blue is a wavelength of light, not abstract at all. Can you think 'blue' without thinking blue? The concept isn't separate from its physical manifestation. You can always convert 'blue' into a code but that is not 'blue', it is the numerical translation of 'blue'.
Likewise, 'logic' refers to a practice, not some disembodied entity.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot 'outside time and space' but rather 'independent of' or 'orthogonal too'.
Yes, that's what you said. Please explain how logic can be outside time and space, independently of any thinker.
Blue is a wavelength of light, not abstract at all. Can you think 'blue' without thinking blue?
Where is it? When is it? Its a lot more abstract than you seem to think.
Which wave length of light? Don't you realize that length too is abstract and thus something dependent on it must also be abstract? Where is 6m when was 2km?
The concept isn't separate from its physical manifestation. You can always convert 'blue' into a code but that is not 'blue', it is the numerical translation of 'blue'.
So are numerical translations abstract? Do you at least agree that anything that is abstract is independent of time and space?
Likewise, 'logic' refers to a practice, not some disembodied entity.
It refers to the abstract form of a practice, not to any given embodied instance of it.
03 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead'Orthogonal' -- a geometrical expression, one that relies on spatial properties. 'Abstract' itself, 'to withdraw from', implies motion, space, time.
Not 'outside time and space' but rather 'independent of' or 'orthogonal too'.
[b]Blue is a wavelength of light, not abstract at all. Can you think 'blue' without thinking blue?
Where is it? When is it? Its a lot more abstract than you seem to think.
Which wave length of light? Don't you realize that length too is abstract and thus something depen to the abstract form of a practice, not to any given embodied instance of it.[/b]
It's in your mind.
Length is nothing without something to measure.
They're not abstract, they refer to something, in this case 'blue'. You could probably translate them further into topological forms.
Define 'the abstract form of a practice' without being tautological.
Without first principles of some kind, without axioms, logic itself is tautological. (This last phrase expresses adequately the superstitions that riddle language itself (This last phrase ...)).
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28916
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherAh! The 'some' people who 'sometimes' do 'somethings' we can criticize! Is that like the christians that murder or rape children? 'Accountable' doesn't have much meaning in that context so therefore there must be no god.
You're twisting what I said. I was not referring to atheists specifically or even in general. I was referring to some people who can't handle being accountable (I did not say irresponsible - two completely different words/meanings) to anyone - even themselves. Some people do not accept the existence of God based solely on the fact that the ...[text shortened]... that God will accept Christ's perfection in place of our imperfection and we are saved.
03 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMathematics is about syntax. Its concepts have no meaning unless they are interpreted (semantics) and when they are interpreted, they stop being independent of time and space.
Not 'outside time and space' but rather 'independent of' or 'orthogonal too'.
[b]Blue is a wavelength of light, not abstract at all. Can you think 'blue' without thinking blue?
Where is it? When is it? Its a lot more abstract than you seem to think.
Which wave length of light? Don't you realize that length too is abstract and thus something depen to the abstract form of a practice, not to any given embodied instance of it.[/b]
Syntax, however, will then be only correct or incorrect by consensus! You have to chose the rules that the syntax will obey and, independently of time and space, you cannot chose one set of rules over the other. It is our observation of the world that surrounds us that leads us to consensus over a certain set of rules over the other.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaSure thing. Since I join hands with you and Bosse, I will offer another view of this situation, based on the concept of the void.
Mathematics is about syntax. Its concepts have no meaning unless they are interpreted (semantics) and when they are interpreted, they stop being independent of time and space.
Syntax, however, will then be only correct or incorrect by consensus! You have to chose the rules that the syntax will obey and, independently of time and space, you cannot chose on ...[text shortened]... e world that surrounds us that leads us to consensus over a certain set of rules over the other.
Methinks that twhitehead’s Pythagorean/ Platonic “just is” and SharpeMothers’ Christian “just is” are merely conventions established by their respectful minds. The substratum of their minds forms up ideas that they have no inherent being, and their minds and their equivalent ideas are neither established independently nor by one another. Since what is not established is not that which establishes another which is not established, Karma is explained without exception: the compounded and the uncompounded factors are neither manifold nor unitary, neither existent nor non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, and therefore all the possibilities are included. And finally we are standing herenow collapsing the wavefunction solely according to our nature -and our nature is the nature of our mind, which is empty.
The originates of thwitehead’s and SharpeMothers’ consciousness (and the originates of every human being, that is) are dependent upon an object of their respectful consciousness, therefore they are empty. Since without cognition and an object of consciousness there is consequently no subject of consciousness at all, their respectful “just is” ideas are neither acceptable as a standing alone “absolute truth” as SharpeMother claims nor, of course, “independent of space and time” as twhitehead claims. This means that the essence of Nagarjuna’s good ole concept about sunyata/ emptiness/ void is also validated regarding twhitehead’s and SharpeMothers’ respectful “just is” ideas -but where these delusional ideas are coming from?
Methinks the countless “just is” ideas of ours are caused out of our attraction, repulsion and error that are triggered during our interaction with the physical world, and from these agents originate attachment, aversion and delusion. But attachment, aversion and delusion are also empty and they are produced solely thanks to a faculty of our mind known as imagination -which is also empty of intrinsic being. So all these things are solely Us, they are a projection of ours. Ones' final synthesis -and the link between the Worlds 1, 2 and 3 that is known as “Truth”- is solely ones' self. And of course ones' opinion is not an "absolute truth" but solely the view from his personal window as s/he sees it
😵
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo. It is an abstract concept that is in no way dependent on spacial properties. Next you will be telling me that the Cartesian plane is not abstract and must exist in space!
'Orthogonal' -- a geometrical expression, one that relies on spatial properties.
Orthogonal even works without ever using the Cartesian plane or visualizing the co-ordinates in any way. All 'orthogonal' really means is 'independent'. On the Cartesian plane, the X value of any point is not tied to the Y value of any point. Every point must be specified using both values. A given Y value (say 2) does not have position on the X axis. It is independent of the X-axis.
This concept applies to anything in which there is more than one 'dimension'. A dimension is basically a measuring system that is independent of other measuring systems in place.
Weight could be said to be orthogonal to length. You could never say that 2kg only exists between 5km and 20km.
'Abstract' itself, 'to withdraw from', implies motion, space, time.
It's in your mind.
Oh come one!. Its all your mind. You are pulling at straws.
Length is nothing without something to measure.
That is where you are failing to understand what 'abstract' means. You may say that length requires something to measure, but is it dependent on any given thing? Is there a part of space that is immeasurable? It is orthogonal to spacetime.
They're not abstract, they refer to something, in this case 'blue'. You could probably translate them further into topological forms.
OK. Give me an example of something abstract, maybe I will understand better what you are trying to say.
Define 'the abstract form of a practice' without being tautological.
Without first principles of some kind, without axioms, logic itself is tautological. (This last phrase expresses adequately the superstitions that riddle language itself (This last phrase ...)).
I think we are misunderstanding each other with regard to the word 'abstract' so I will await your example of something abstract first.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaSo it is your claim that 2+2=4 is either a) a matter of consensus or b) is a result of observation of the world? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Mathematics is about syntax. Its concepts have no meaning unless they are interpreted (semantics) and when they are interpreted, they stop being independent of time and space.
Syntax, however, will then be only correct or incorrect by consensus! You have to chose the rules that the syntax will obey and, independently of time and space, you cannot chose on ...[text shortened]... e world that surrounds us that leads us to consensus over a certain set of rules over the other.
I cannot accept a) as that would not explain how the concept has arisen indifferent societies and never 2+2=5. If b) then I am curious as to why real world objects are necessary for such a deduction.
You are getting dangerously close to the claim that Angels being independent of the universe are not subject to counting and thus may be impossible to count.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are getting dangerously close to the claim that Angels being independent of the universe are not subject to counting and thus may be impossible to count.
So it is your claim that 2+2=4 is either a) a matter of consensus or b) is a result of observation of the world? Or am I misunderstanding you?
I cannot accept a) as that would not explain how the concept has arisen indifferent societies and never 2+2=5. If b) then I am curious as to why real world objects are necessary for such a deduction.
You are gett ...[text shortened]... ing independent of the universe are not subject to counting and thus may be impossible to count.
It's pretty obvious that if angels do not exist in this universe (the only way they can be "independent" of it) then they are impossible to count (in the traditional sense of the word 😉).
2+2 = 4 is an example of the application of a certain string manipulation rules. It's truth value ONLY depends on the string manipulation rules that were defined for that particular game. There is nothing intrinsic about those rules and, in reduced form, will always be axiomatic. This is actually a consequence of their abstract nature. Up to here, their truth values are independent of the actual world we live in.
The issue is that, without the universe, why would we agree on a particular set of string manipulation rules? Well, we converge to a certain one because we simply don't have equal use for any given such set. One that helps us represent the world we live in is much more valuable than one which is less helpful. And here is where the consensus is important and here is where our choice of the particular set of string manipulation rules that we call Mathematics requires observation.
To recap, the truth-values within each system do not depend on real objects, but the choice of a system does. So 2+2=4 is true within the chosen model (regardless of the world) but the choice of model is dependent on the world.
03 Nov 09
As to the objection regarding its prevalence, its simply due to the similar way we experience the world. Again, someone who experiences time-space in a completely different way (think Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen) might prefer a different system. In formal logic, causality might seem completely inadequate for him yet for us it almost feels incontestable.