RE: Does Tarski Undefinability apply to HOL ?
SUBTOPIC: Undefinability and Truth
※→.et al,

All "Orders of" logic have a necessity in the concepts and characteristics being defined. That applies to the elemental "quantifiers" in the Tarski Theorem.

As our Friend PL Olcott points out: "mathematics is incomplete." And that presumption profoundly affects the symbolic language (syntax) of logic in the First and Second Orders. Higher-order logic (HOL) is another animal altogether.

Remember, once you begin to apply the various forms of syntax and semantics (algorithms, guidelines, notation rules, or heuristics) to any attempt to solve a question or inquiry, there is no room for a “eureka moment” that is dependent on the human intellect. A “eureka moment” is undefined by any equation and in many cases is incomprehensible.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: What is a strong argument against the concievability of philosophical zombies?
SUBTOPIC: Split Thoughts
⁜→ Patterner, et al,

ON THE TOPIC: against the concievability of philosophical zombies
(COMMENT)

There are many facets to philosophy. A "philosophical zombie" is a philosopher with no independent thought on the subjects of knowledge, consciousness, anomalies or nature in reality, and existence. It is a philosopher that can only regurgitate the thoughts of others or what they have been taught.

The use of "zombie" in this manner is cute. In this case, to appreciate the descriptor relative to the philosopher. One has to mentally conjure the characteristics of the unreal (zombie). Whatever the capacity one assigns to the zombie is strictly fantasy. Yet, the idea of a zombie being real is a metaphysical notion.

∴ cute

I sang a song.
I went for a run.
I had a thought.

Are song, run, or thought nouns in those sentences?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

SHORT ANSWER: Yes!

Technically, they are the "object" (noun) of each sentence for the "verb."

• sang (verb) → song (object)
• went (verb) → run (object)
• had (verb) → thought (object)

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Does the idea of incorrect questions make sense?
※→ et al,

Time is not a ratio (per sa). When you say time, you have to think in terms of space-time. The two are inseparable.

There is nothing wrong with the question concept. However it can be criticized as a fallacy known as a "False Dilemma." Then again, my answer might be considered hasty.

My thumbnail answer is probably somewhat difficult to understand.
SHORT ANSWER: YES (Qualified)

What time is it (yes or no)? can be answered with a ratio?

Time is actually a dimensional coordinate in a space where the 3-dimentional coordinate "x" axis = 0, "y" axis = 0 "z" axis = 0 (a coordinate) shifts in location. Time is on a continuum in which frequency is a difference in location as observed by an outside observer. Time is measured as the inverse of frequency. This is to say that the ˙∆t between the one location (x,y,z) and the velocity (v) to the next location (x' , y' , z').

1/freq = time. and. 1/time = freq

This is done all the because nothing is motionless. When you say three o'clock, you are talking about a single coordinate in the past. If you say one Megahertz (1.0E-6 Seconds), you are talking about traveling in time at this moment.

(Note: Even at the speed of light (c), no outside observer is stationary, The outside observer is always looking into the past, but the frequency shifts due to the doppler effect.)


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Does the idea of incorrect questions make sense?
※→ et al,

No... It can be answered as a ratio.

Is it incorrect to ask what the value of π is?

(COMMENT)

This is a question related to the cousin • "infinity." ( ∞ )

No mathematics is perfect. Mathematics is NOT related to truth or some other reality. PI ( π ) is a ratio [(22:7 or 22/7) or (a geometric ratio of the circumference to the diameter)]. There is no exact equivalent in the decimal form (base 10). A calculator gives you an answer in terms of a never ending line of successive approximations until it exhausts its memory.



There are entire books written on the subject of "infinity." I tried to understand the Bertrand Russel's (1872-1970) writings (text) when I was studying "idealism." To be honest, I reached my "limit" before I reached the end of the text. (Pun Intended)


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
※→. et al,

"String Theory" is an example of "Metaphysics." It is beyond the capacity to be explained through the "Scientific Method." It is beyond the laws of physics as we know it today.

There are many different approaches to addressing the scope and nature of "Metaphysics."

Another aspect angle to "Metaphysics" is the question of "Consciousness" (awareness is a silent dialogue raised by a questing imagination).

THEN: "Metaphysics" also covers the concept of receiving information from an intelligence (an entity) from an etheric realm. The most common such communication is that claimed by the Abrahamic Religious and the inspiration from of a spiritual nature (can intelligence from a higher plain of existence). Those that believe prayer is a connection to a deity (The Supreme Being, The First Cause, and The Creator), of the there is an After Life, are in the realm of Metaphysics (Near Death Experiences, or Supernatural Occurrences).

All this and much more falls in the realm of Metaphysicis.

Something that a huge number of people in the general population has heard of is: When a Spiritual Leader turns water or whine into the Blood of of a Deity (Savior or Messiah), that is scientifically called transubstaniation (AKA: transmutation). This is a form of "Alchemy;" or the magic from which the legends like Merlin are made. This is "metaphysics."


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Does the idea of incorrect questions make sense?
※→ et al,

Does this notion of incorrect question make sense?
(RESPONSE)

• Yes, it is is possible to have an incorrect question.
  For instance: Any question that is ambiguous. What is the best best color for man?
  
• Any question in which the object is beyond description is incorrect.
  For instance: Who is the Supreme Being? What is the First Cause?
  
• Any scientific question that is untestable.
  For instance: Where is the center of the universe?

etc,

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: "Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies"
⁜→ et al,

I wonder what a 'scientific explanation of consciousness' - or let's say 'mind' - is trying to actually explain — Wayfarer

(COMMENT)

Before commenting on this contribution, I thought I should refresh my understanding of what "science" means when it says "consciousness." That way, I might know a little bit of the topic. So, I when to Gale Encyclopedia of Science, 4thEd, © 2008 The Gale Group, K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, Editors, pp1012, for some clarity.

It appears that "Consciousness" is a description of a condition or observation. Science does not know how to describe it otherwise. It is almost (but not perfectly) the opposite of the term "coma." "Consciousness" is (loosely) defined by the functionality of two sets:
[indent]
• The ability to accept and understand various forms of stimulation acquired through various sensory abilities, including, but not limited to taste, smell, touch, hearing, and sight. And through these senses, some life forms build and understand of their reality.

• The key physiological triggers that appear to activate "primitive response" and "involuntary reflexes" (like fight or flight). This functionality is maintained by the reticular activating system (RAS) (throughout the brainstem).
[/indent]

The complaint was about science’s “failure” to answer the question. That would needed to be supported by examples of science failing.

Does this pass as making an epistemological argument?] — apokrisis

(COMMENT)

The "Scientific Method" seeks to make sense of what we observe in reality. "Metaphysics" is the ultimate study of reality (real 'vs' unreal). The "Theory of Knowledge" (AKAEpistemology) is a discipline within philosophy which leads to how deals with the nature and/or justification as to how knowledge is acquired.

Why any particular scientific endeavor or inquiry "fails" is a forensic "post moratorium" analysis. It is an examination of the hypothesis or the methodology. Even in failures - knowledge is gained. The Epistemological argument occurs in the development of the methodology behind the test and examination of a specific hypothesis → that is before the failure.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
---- Thomas A. Edison

Just My Two-Cents Worth...
Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Atheist Dogma.
SUBTOPIC: The relevance of the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument.
⁜→ universeness, et al,

The specific argument for the existence of the Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God) (in this case the Kalam Cosmological Argument) and (∆) "Atheist Dogma" (something not clearly defined) is confusing at best.

(COMMENT)
.
Atheism [the denial of the existence • Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God)] → and → the belief in the existence of same "sound," at first, to be polar opposites. ••• Belief 'vs' Disbelief ••• But they are not. There is no commonly held contemporary definition of what a Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God) might be in terms of qualities or characteristics.

A faith-based concept in the belief in the Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator[/i] (God)] is not required to be sound and valid. "What I believe" to be a Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator[/i] (God)] and "what you believe" may vastly differ. But that does not preclude the belief in the existence. However, to hold the opinion that something does not exist, one must understand what it is that does not exist.

You and I can agree that there is something called a car. However, my concept of a car (a VW Beetle) and your concept of a car (an Aston Martin) may differ greatly. The believers may disagree on what constitutes a "car" as many times as there are makes and models. Although they only have to come to an agreement once for the belief to be true (T). But in the mind of the Atheist, you cannot disagree on something for which you cannot define. Thus, in atheism, there is no common ground for a dogma on what it is that they disagree (because it doesn't exist).

A believer and a non-believer can never agree on what a void is. Why? Because, for them, to disagree with one another they must exist and be recognized by one another. But IF that is true (T) THEN the existence of a void cannot exist.

.
Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Consciousness is a Precondition of Being
SUBTOPIC: What is "Consciousness?" 'vs' What is "Being?"
※→ T Clark, 180 Proof, Wayfarer, et al,

Consciousness

• Consciousness is a compound topic with interconnections of the science behind billions of neurons, and the input, storage, and retrieval of patterns that contain intelligence that have come to be considered consciousness. It constitutes metaphysical interpretations that is (not yet) understood.
  
• Surveillance in near-real-time of the neurons → bio-electrical signals (modulation of those impulses). We can inject stimuli (either as modulated or carrier-only signals) and test neuronal fibers and determine the performance characteristics. Of the many observations and manipulations of the brain that we can explain, independent consciousness patterns cannot be reconstructed to form the original stimulation. And there is the threshold of metaphysics.

Being

• Being is a descriptor for existence. Existence does not require embedded consciousness. Being does not require self-awareness.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is "good" indefinable?
et al,

This is a judgmental perception.


(COMMENT)

Good is unique to the observer's perspective. IF there is more than one observer, THEN there is the possibility that they may not agree on whether or not an event is either "GOOD" • or • "BAD."

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
et al,

What about me? — Bartricks

(COMMENT)

It seems I always leave somebody out of the Thanks when I do this. Certainly, "BRATRICKS" deserves recognition for helping me become more enlightened.

Sincerely,
R

RE: A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
et al,

I would like to open with a "Great Thanks, to Enrique, Gnomon, Benj96, and Mark Nyquist - and all, for the thought-provoking commentary in their contributions. I had originally thought that "consciousness" was a mystery better left to the Study in Metaphysics. I still think that the notion of "consciousness" is directly related to the understanding of what it means to be a "sentient being;" and if there are levels to "sentience."

I was very amazed at "180 Proof's" contribution, not that I fully comprehend the meaning.

Some investigators have tried to determine what is meant by the "mind;" and if there is a relationship between these Perceptions (Consciousness, Sentience, Mental Facilities).


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: A Scientific Theory of Consciousness
→ Enrique, et al,

Consciousness is a compound and complex topic with pathways that crisscross the science behind the characteristics and actions of the hundred billion neurons, and the acceptance, retention, and retrieval of information patterns that constitute the metaphysical interpretation.

We can monitor in real-time the neurons as they generate and send electrical signals. We can inject stimuli (modulated or carrier only) and test neuronal fibers and determine the performance characteristics. We can inject tracking properties into the extracellular fluid, and we can watch various portions or locations within the brain light up and flash as it reacts to external sensory events. But we really cannot explain the differences in the capacities from one brain to the next.

Consciousness is one of the principal differences. Of the many observations and manipulations of the brain that we can explain, we cannot tell you what part of the brain controls consciousness. And there is the threshold of metaphysics.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is space 4 dimensional?

(First Approximation) In the study of Euclidian Geometry, and most Sacred Geometry, what we would normally consider the Fourth Dimension (4D) would be approximated by the Three Dimensions (3D) (X-Axis, Y-Axis, Z-Axis) coordinate which uniformly moves in one direction along segments of this 4D axis (t) (for time). At higher approximation levels (particularly those that consider the Fourth-Dimensional Existence and begin to allow the influence of Transformation (Reflections, Angular momentum, Rotational Groups, and Symmetry) the one most concerned in most cases is the impact of time-Dilation.



(BOTTOM LINE)

Space is expanding. Theoretically, all the astrological objects, bodies, and groups are moving away from each other. This causes a shift in frequency causing light to change in color. 4d(t) uses that space to maintain momentum.

Most Respectfully,
R

et al,

Just my thoughts...

Unless you can define what a deity is, and what it has in strengths and weaknesses, you cannot compare human frailties to a deity. You cannot define a deity, therefore you cannot compare it to mortal humans.

No one in this forum can define a deity.

While it s the case that man cannot change the laws of the universe, a deity, instrumental in the creation of the universe, can tweak, adjust, change or modify any law because the Supreme Being established the Laws of the Universe.

Respectfully,
R

RE: The Dormant Mind of a Fundamentalist
SUBTOPIC: Views on Fundamentalism?
⁜→ Art48, ArielAssanete, et al,

I cannot adopt the idea that the Supreme Being is Omnibenevolence – all-loving and all-forgiving. So, rather than argue that point, I will avoid it.


Christianity: The story of God impregnating a woman who wasn’t his wife so he could sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.
[/quote]
(COMMENT)

In any belief structure, the first imperative is the notion of belief.

A preacher once said that gays are mentally ill and God will punish them forever in hell. — Art48

(COMMENT)

While this sounds very like and is framed in its delivery as a religious fable, it is actually a Product Liability issue. It implies that the Supreme Being (the manufacturer) be held liable for placing a defective lifeform into a situation in which the Supreme Being is actually responsible for the defect that caused an injury or other inappropriate outcome.

Rather, the mind is merely doing what God created it for. It’s doing what any healthy mind would do. — Art48

(COMMENT)

This is close to the actual conditions IF you assign the "God Power" properties (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.).

.......... ◈ IF the Supreme Being was not all-powerful, THEN it may have been too complex a problem to create a lifeform that will always follow the Supernational intentions.

.......... ◈ IF the Supreme Being was not all-knowing THEN that sets the conditions that the Supreme Being could not avoid a future obstacle and deviate from that path of action.

.......... ◈ IF the Supreme Being was not everywhere in space and time.


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: The Role of Light/Molecular Interactions in Producing a Perceptual Coherence Field Within the Brain
SUBTOPIC: Spectral Detection
※→ Enrique, Gnomon, Enrique, Sherlock Holmes, et al,

I find the idea of a "physics of consciousness" specious. — Sherlock Holmes

(COMMENT)

It is obvious (in most cases) when an animal is"conscious." A response is observed to stimuli of one or more of the senses. It is generally agreed that it is possible to recognize and respond to a visual stimulus within 300-500 milliseconds (msec). (Martin Tovee, How Fast is the Speed of Thought?):

"[E]vidence suggests that sensory information is processed much faster than was previously thought and that individual neurons need to be active for only twenty to thirty milliseconds to mediate perception." (© Current Biology 1994, Vol 4 No 12 pp 1125)

There are at least two or three synapses, in the various findings generally reveal a consistent synaptic latency of 10-15 ms in transmission between the various synaptic exchanges in a chain. Granted, the human body, as well as most other animal lifeforms, generates an electromagnetic field (EMF) of some sort. The presence of an EMF.

(COMMENT)

At some point, further on down the road, someone will be recognized for their achievement in stitching these various unstandardized tests, evaluations, and experimental outcomes together into a more understandable model. I have a difficult time with just keeping what little I understand straight in the relationships between how one measures the magnitude of power (current x voltage) it takes to generate "consciousness" - and what the unit of measurement "consciousness" is scaled. And, we have not even mentioned the need in understanding the synaptic noise floor, the necessary duration a stimulus needs to be before it is recognized or synaptically significant.

(COMMENT)

The concept that some fundamental physical entities have mental states is a derivative of what line of logic? How do fundamental physical entities place into memory the various changes in state? And the view that fundamental entities have a proto-conscious state is distinguished by what type of marker (a change in the pulse repetition rate), center frequency, a change in bandwidth or - what? I have a hard enough time determining how my Apple Magic Keyboard retains memory or changes that memory.


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: The fragility of time and the unconscious
SUBTOPIC: Is something?
※→ javi2541997, et al,

I think that Kant's thoughts applied somewhere between the empirical probability and the parametric form is equivalent to Maximum Descriptive Limit (MDL) empirical likelihood. I believe Emmanual Kant, who's study of reality, would give intuitive and/or empirical assumptions more value than normal when outside the normal distribution and characteristics.

As long as you can recognize that everything sits within the space-time fabric, you can say that they are independent, But remember that Kant surmised that there would be the occasional zones of exceptions, anomalies, and the occasional Asymptotic functions. But when rival principles of perception;, the types of empirical data the approach can and cannot explain, it falls into the reality of Metaphysics.

THEN, yes! We arena general agreement.


Most Respectfully,
R

RE: The fragility of time and the unconscious
SUBTOPIC: Is something?
※→ et al,

I would like to fall back to the beginning.

(COMMENT)

But "where" is time, so to speak? — Constance

Time, being a human construct, is a matter of sensitivity and perception.

Time is the inverse to frequency [ t=(1/f) ] and it only points in a positive direction. Because it is a construct, the only question becomes: Is it sound and valid?


Respectfully,
R

RE: Evidence of conscious existence after death.
SUBTOPIC: Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis
※→ Ignance, et al,

(PREFACE)

I was I'm my "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR) mode when I spoke (seriously) of the "implications" when opening consideration of reincarnation, and assigning it some level of validity.

There is an undefined relationship between the Faith-Based Concept (F-BC) of "reincarnation" and the potential reality of reincarnation on the Metaphysical level.
Such an argument on the F-BC opens with the implied "divine source." Whereas the Metaphysical approach starts with the deductively valid methodology.

Ignance quoted you in Evidence of conscious existence after death.
was reincarnation ever supposed to be testable by science? because from what Eastern philosophy i have read, it certainly doesn’t seem like it to me, seems like a bit of a way to...
(COMMENT)

The deductively valid methodology of combing through each scientific lead until either the PSR strongly suggests a specific line of inquiry is leading to a biological, chemical, or physics/cosmological solution. - OR - The pursuit of each lead strongly suggests an energy of supernatural origin is the reasonable solution by means of "Sufficient Reason."

In such pursuits, an unusual linkage opens up that is not examined all that often. In ordinary Scientific and Metaphysical approaches, ‘implication’ has a much greater spectrum in its meanings. This becomes important in the greater understanding of reasoning within the constraints of communication of all kinds. Reincarnation, in this regard, raises implications concerning the information. Normally we think that "truth" is universal everywhere in the universe; that 1+1=2 (Base 10) everywhere.


Respectfully,
R

RE: Evidence of conscious existence after death.
SUBTOPIC: Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis
※→ et al,

The implications of reincarnation open the door to some very many questions that cannot be tested in a manner consistent with the Scientific Method. (ie. a falsifiable hypothesis)

What is "being reincarnated" actually mean? Is it some aspect of a previous intelligence, a knowledge of past historical events, an understanding of things that cannot be known?

IF reincarnation implies a detailed knowledge of past events,

◈ THEN where has that memory been?
◈ THEN what form of medium was the memory maintained?
◈ THEN what modulation was the memory maintained?
◈ THEN who has the capacity to detect and demodulate that coding?

What is it we are discussing? Is it simply that some person says they remember the past life (or lives)? Is this person some form of "host" to an energy form that has the capacity to replicate all the processes that would be necessary to perform these various functions? What are our base assumptions?


Respectfully,
R

RE: Evidence of conscious existence after death.
SUBTOPIC: Tangible (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility
※→ et al,

For the purposes of this discussion, one has to set aside the concept of "proof." It implies a next-level concept. In Physics and Metaphysics, the concept of "proof" has no immediate value.

The implied meaning to the concepts of "Near-Death Experiences" (NDE), Consciousness and Memories through Consciousness, and the injection of "After-Death Experiences" (ADE), and similar types of reports on such events, no matter how detailed they may be, provide no real value to Physics and Metaphysics without supporting Tangible Outcomes (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility Findings via processes that can be replicated or repeatedly reproduced by trusted independent experimentation and close examination.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I am sure you have all seen videos of people in white lab coats sticking some poor test subject with electrodes. It is not so dissimilar to the Electroencephalogram (EEG). This uses a contact sensor. But this rarely, if ever, actually replicates the observational distances of what was reported in the NDE/ADE.

In terms of consciousness, we can detect activity, but we cannot actually demodulate any specific signal intelligence.

We have a very good idea as to how fast the "neurons" transmit the stimulation (action potential) down "axons" to a synaptic connection to the next "neuron." This can transmit a signal at between 175-to-185 km/hr (the speed of a radio signal is 300,000,000 km/sec). We need to keep in mind that if one of these Event Reports includes imagery of some sort or an apparition or other phenomenon, then we are talking about some serious level of energy. Our knowledge today suggests that the greater the frequency of modulation, the more energy it takes. I could go on and on, but the point is: In some sense, the serious investigation is not looking for proof, but rather they are looking for unexplained "energy." And that is not something done in operating rooms today.

Now is any of this new? (RHETORICAL). No... Anyone that knows the story of Frankenstein's Monster, knows that it took a lightning strike to generate the life force. While the story of Frankenstein's Monster is about the fictional character created by Mary Shelley, in the same time period, we would see the likes of Michael Faraday (electromagnetism and electrochemistry), and James Maxwell (electromagnetic phenomenon).

Just My Simple Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: The Ultimate Question of Metaphysics
SUBTOPIC: QFT Normalization?
※→ apokrisis, et al,

Hummm ... normalization in quantum field theory (QFT)?

I am not sure I understand your application of this idea of normalization relative to “metaphysics.” When we speak of “normalization” • and • “renormalization” in contemporary times (relative to QFT), it is my understanding that we are referring to Wavefunction Properties, Normalization, and Expectation Values. Vector space of potentially infinite dimensions is implied. But QFT and (say for instance) consciousness are NOT inexplicably linked. QM cannot make thoughts and dreams a “reality” absent other external influences. And in the simplest way of looking at Metaphysics, you are studying “reality.” We are looking at a “Hilbert Space.” But it is very difficult to apply since we do not have a system of wavefunctions that describe a Metaphysical system While QM and the basic systems of Geometries (Euclidean, hyperbolic and elliptical) can help in the detection and experimentation of questions pertaining to “reality” (Metaphysics), the solution to any question of “reality” is not ensnared by the various systems of symmetry and constraints implied by the QFT.


Most Respectfully,
R
Tuesday, July 26, 2022

RE: How to Do Philosophy
SUBTOPIC: Fundamentals
※→ Banno, et al,

I am wondering if the original question is flawed in some way? Let us suppose we examine a set of alternatives:

• ◈ Let us suppose, just for a moment, that the entity does NOT "Do Philosophy." (It is not an exercise that you do.)
  
• ◈ Let us suppose that "Philosophy" is something on the order of a tool. (It is a type of Test and Measurement Equipment.)

Philosophy is only as hard as the question under examination.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R
Saturday, July 22, 2022

RE: Foundational Metaphysics
SUBTOPIC: Fundamental Issue
※→ Agent Smith, et al,

I fail to see why anyone in his right mind would want to use a highly controversial concept such as infinity as the bedrock of his/her thesis (on metaphysics)? — Agent Smith

(COMMENT)

The concept of that which is boundless, with no beginning and no end, that which is beyond the termination of any set, or larger than anything imaginable (∞) is not all that controversial.

If one either argues for the belief in a deity or against a deity, one must have some idea as to what "infinity" means. The degree of that understanding is altogether different.

Nevertheless, from the posts I read, the OP gets points for being systematic, a quality that I respect (a lot). — Agent Smith

(COMMENT)

Acknowledging a presentation that is assembled as a coherent body of ideas or principles → even that which is considered a balanced equation, is what it is... Once you grasp that a "Fibonacci Sequence" has the same number of elements in its set as does the "Set of All Numbers" THEN you begin to understand "infinity."

"infinity as the bedrock of his/her thesis (on metaphysics)" — Agent Smith

(COMMENT)

Certainly, both the set of all physical laws of the universe → and the set of all that is beyond the limits in the physical laws of the universe → are the same in size and magnitude.


Most Respectfully,
R
Saturday, July 16, 2022

RE: Foundational Metaphysics
SUBTOPIC: Fundamental Issue
※→ Bob Ross, et al,

Well, evidently I have no idea what I am doing.

I apologize: I am having a hard time understanding this question. Could you please reformulate the question? What exactly are you asking (what is "the first question")? — Bob Ross

(COMMENT)

I thought you were opening a discussion on a focused topic. Please disregard my previous comment.


Most Respectfully,
R
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 (2)

RE: Foundational Metaphysics
SUBTOPIC: Fundamental Issue
※→ Bob Ross, et al,

Please forgive old man.

• What is the first question?
  
• What basic rules or laws have you decided are unchallengeable (that which cannot be contradicted)? I suppose these unchallengeable laws are related to what you have determined to be sine qua nons (absolutely necessary).

By its very nature, "Metaphysics" is a type of "thinking outside the box." The entire concept of "infinity" [(positive or negative)(bounded or unbounded)] is alien to Metaphysics. In each study, inquiry or, investigation, of that which is determined to be a Metaphysical event is explained in the portion of the outcome or product that deals with methodology.

Just my thought.


Most Respectfully,
R
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 (1)

Enrique,

In report and investigative records/discussions, there is a technique called Short Titling where you spell the words or phrases once and then in parentheses the acronym you will use elsewhere.

Unconscious Electromagnetic Impressions (UCEMFI). EMF is a pretty much standard in science and technology. It stands for either electromagnetic field or force.

The mind (brain activity) does not terminate in an "unconscious" state. And you already mentioned some standard mechanical support and diagnostic equipment. But in the arena of Metaphysics, there are research methodologies. Most CEMFI ([url=http://Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory]Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory[/url]) there are similar to the non-invasive technologies. There are also additional lines of inquiry and research for the "Unconscious State." When a person is awake but disoriented or responding in unexpected ways, EMF technologies might be brought into play. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), and Positron Emission Tomography (PET). The internet is not a sole source outlet for technical information. I, quite frequently use Software Defined Radio (SDR) receivers and spread-spectrum detection with waterfall display. But all these devices or the accompanying multidisciplined research applications have little acronyms associated with them.

I hope this is of some interest to you.

Regards,
R

RE: A Materialist Proof of Free Will Based on Fundamental Physics of the Brain
SUBTOPIC: Neuroscientific Perspective Existence/Nonexistence of Free Will
⁜→ et al,

There are many different ways to approach the question of Free Will and its existence/nonexistence. It is in the family (one of many members) of "intangibles" and it is NOT a dependent theory attached to some item having a physical existence. It is on the order of concepts like (but not limited to) honesty, integrity, moral values, etc... You cannot bring home a bag of "free will" any more than you can bring home a bag of honesty, integrity, moral values, etc... And, unlike many concepts, "free will" can be detected by devices using Conscious Electromagnetic Instrumentation (CEMFI), as well as, Unconscious Electromagnetic Impressions (UCEMFI). Absent any biased outside influence, "free will" is the questionable outcome of a UCEMFI. (The various CEMI Theories.)

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Can there be a proof of God?
SUBTOPIC: Presented Logic String
※→. Agent Smith, et al,

(SHORT ANSWER)

NO: Proof

In mathematics, along with the sciences, a proof is
a logical argument demonstrating that a specific statement,
proposition, or mathematical formula is true. It
consists of a set of assumptions, or premises, which are
combined according to logical rules (called rules of
logic), to establish a valid conclusion. This validation
can be achieved by direct proof that verifies the conclusion
is true, or by indirect proof that establishes
that it cannot be false.
SOURCE: Gale encyclopedia of science. – 4th ed. K. Lee Lerner & Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors.
p. 3508 cm.

Scientific Method

Scientific thought seeks to make sense of nature.
One test of the adequacy of a scientific explanation is
its ability to make accurate predictions about future
events and observations. Just as the engineer who
designs a bridge ensures that it will withstand the
forces of nature and use, so the scientist considers the
ability of any new scientific model to hold up under
scientific scrutiny as new data become available.
SOURCE: Gale encyclopedia of science. – 4th ed. K. Lee Lerner & Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors.
p. 3817 cm.

(COMMENT)

Belief in the Supreme Being of the Universe is a matter of "Faith." The existence of a Supreme Being, absent proof that survives the Scientific Method, becomes a philosophical exercise into a Metaphysical question. In contemporary science. One of the axioms of a choice "Axiom of Choice Principle." It makes it possible to form sets by choosing an element simultaneously from each member of an "infinite collection of sets" even when no algorithm exists for the selection. Is that possibly? (RHETORICAL). NO... So it is not a proof. There will always be an incomplete set based on the undefined variable which is constant.

There is another closely related theory known as the Axiom of Archimedes Principle. It to is imperfect because it contains the element of "infinity."

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: What is a "nature"[?]
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Gregory; et al,

(COMMENT)

Ah but a thing's patterns is not rejected in nominalism

For machines. and other mechanisms,→ to Acceptance, the Intentional Disregard, or Rejection for the problem or dilemma are three alternatives. The computer or other forms of automation (what you call "things) DO NOT make a choice. The response by any computer or other forms of automation is compliance-oriented. Faced with a problem or dilemma, the device under examination (DUE) will respond according to its programmed instructions. The program which drives the response comes (ultimately) from the human source. The response represents the ability of the program developer to have addressed the alternatives in responding to the problem or dilemma. To the DUE problem or dilemma does not recognize the operation as either a problem or dilemma. To the DUE it is merely a set of conditions to establish a path that corresponds to that which the DUE must deal with. How well the DUE responds to the contains is based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the program developer. The DUE will reflect whatever the program developer directs.

(COMMENT)

Trying to argue that two trees share something in common and meaning more to this than that they have near identical components seems to me to be the corruption of Plato,

All trees, just like humans, have DNA. {SOURCE LINK} There are pretty obvious differences between plants and animals, but – at the chemical level – the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape – the famous “double helix” that looks like a twisted ladder. (Posted by Editors of EarthSky October 13, 2008}

I am not sure what Plato might have meant. But I am sure that Plato was on the right track.

Respectfully,
R

RE: What is a "nature"[?]
SUBTOPIC: Where is Dr (Noam) Chomsky?
※→ et al,

This is really a question for which we could benefit from the expertise Dr Chomsky.

As for me, I find that it is better to use a defined term (definition) than to compose a definition (what is) from scratch. This is much more difficult as a question (the interrogative) than it appears to be at the first notion. I am often entangled in the genus or the spectrum (either I make the definition too narrow or too broad). Or, I find that I get involved in a circular logic argument.

Here, from the way the question is framed, I make the assumption that it is interested in asking for the characteristics and attributes of the item under examination (IUT). → The nature of something is the framework or fundamentals of its reflexes, reactions, or responses expected when exposed to a given condition. And there you have it. By me explaining what the IUT is, I become entangled and caught in an argument that contains a circular trap. And → you walk away with no net gain of information.

I have an advanced degree (academic achievement) and many times find myself at a disadvantage when asked simple questions very much like this. Often the "nature" of a ghostly apparition, soul, or supernatural entity can only be explained by the frequencies of energies it reflects or absorbs. Tell that to an undergrad and see the reaction you get.

Anyway, I should quite wasting your bandwidth and just say, the "nature" of any physical object rest in the absorption pattern.

Respectfully,
R

RE: Gateway-philosophies to Christianity
SUBTOPIC:
※→ emancipate; et al,

I agree. Most of the time, the Westerners don't understand it at all.



Depending on who you listen to, you might get a story like this:

{EXCERPT} t is significant of the degree of their ignorance that the story of the Buddha filtered through in such a garbled form that the founder of Buddhism was believed to be two godly persons, Barlaam and Joasaph, who were duly canonized as saints in the Eastern Church and were venerated as such.
SOURCE: Encyclopedia of World Religions, © 1974 BPC Publishing Company 30 North Terrace, Kent, Australia

The idea "probably" being that if you follow the Saints (canonized) you come closer to the ascended.
Most Respectfully,
R

√RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Application and Distinction
⁜→ Agent Smith, Wayfarer, universeness, et al,

Pragmatism (Peirce) already eliminated metaphysics, quite a long time ago I might add, by asking a simple question "does a metaphysical propositions's truth/falsity matter to us in any real, tangible way?" The answer was "no, it doesn't!"[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Pragmatism, as it applies to "metaphysics" is not valid (yet!)... We do NOT know what works and what does not work. But, the Shroud of Turin (already discussed) is tangible evidence, just as the Miracle of Lanciano - as examined and verified through experimentation (over a year) by the World Health Organization. And again, the Body (St Bernadette) is still visited today (from over a hundred years ago) that the clergy called "incorruptible" has not fallen into decay. These are all physical examples that still exist today and defy scientific explanations.

So the spectrum of Metaphysics not yet defined.

I think the thrust is, Pierce dismisses 'a priori' metaphysics, not metaphysics altogether.[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Can we actually say that NO approach (out of the many) to "Metaphysics" includes a theoretical deduction?

Clearly, for some, tangible or actual evidence of an event, occurrence, event, or happening is a prerequisite to acceptance. Like e^{x} where some value approached a point beyond which it can never reach, the scope of Metaphysics has no defined limit beyond the natural world (reality) which it cannot expand. Metaphysics is an inquiry of an unlimited extent of time, space, energy, or quantity: boundlessness.

I think it could be a useful term in science if it was strictly defined as information about and the implications of current physics knowledge.[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Agreed! At the very least, the examination should include the specific question under investigation, a hypothesis, methods, and limitations before the results of the study are released.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Alternative Consideration
⁜→ Agent Smith, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW). There have been many sound and valid alternatives on the definition of Metaphysics. But I believe this equation is invalid. Metaphysics is not that simple, certainly not as simple as conceiving what 11 dimensions would look like. It is not any more simple, and maybe even more so, than string theory. If anyone here thinks they understand Quantum Mechanics, well they need to think again. And I think that Metaphysics is at that level of difficulty.


(COMMENT)

There is no scientific explanation for the Three-dimensional → life-size image found embedded on the Shroud of Turin a two-dimensional medium. You can argue about what the image represents and it can stand alone outside any religious platform → in a secular fashion. However, you cannot deny that the shroud contains intelligent content of a 3-D Image that could be nearly 2000 years old. The imagery cannot be replicated using today's technology.

Now, the examination and study of the shroud is the examination of Empirical Evidence. It is provided us with apriori (from a much earlier time) knowledge that is beyond today's technology. It can be examined by all the cornerstone sciences (Math, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics), and still defy an explanation for its existence. That is an example of the realm of Metaphysics.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term
SUBTOPIC: Definition and conveyed Meaning.
⁜→ et al,

“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. — ”Art48”

Thinking of “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term is possible if and when you think that, by natural explanations, you are able to exhaust all that we need to know, essentially, about something. — ”Angelo Cannata”

The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term — ”Tom Strom”

But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated. — ”universeness”

Supernatural should refer to super nature, such as Stars and Solstices. — ”Varde”

Science can do without the term and just study phenomena, but then has to replace indistinguishable 'man and nature' with indistinguishable 'subjective and objective', or indistinguishable 'observer and observation'.

Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning.

To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic. — ”unenlightened"

It looks like the supernatural refers to a class of things/phenomena that defies natural (read scientific) explanation. — ”Agent Smith”

Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss. — ”jorndoe”

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’
~ St Augustine — ”Wayfarer”

(COMMENT)

The utility and definition (meaning) of the term "supernatural" is a matter of "context." The intention of the term is very dependent on what the communicator intended to convey and what the receiver of the communication actually understands.

I think, for the most part, all the contributors made some very thought-provoking commentary.

Excluding the introduction of "Dark Energy/Matter" and "Exotic Particles" or the duality (wave vs particle) concepts of the supernatural component, which most religions have, imply some tangible aspect (detectable energy) acting as a cause. IF you can "see" an apparition THEN there is some form of energy involved. That is true even if the energy is divinely inspired. And that is where the natural laws of the universe become ensnarled. The Abrahamic Religions have foundational beliefs that involve the supernational (and sometimes alchemy). In Matthew 14:13-21, there is a description of a compound event in which both the supernatural and alchemy seemed to have been enterlaced.
____________________________________________________________
CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT NOTES

David Hume defined the term "MIRACLE" as a violation of a law of
nature by a supernatural agent. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp151 )

SUPERNATURAL From the Latin super, “above” and natura, “nature.” Refers to God or gods or incorporeal agents such as angels or demons. Because “supernatural” is sometimes associated with the “superstitious,” some use the term “supra-natural” to refer to God and/or other realities that are beyond corporeal, cosmic agents. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp222 )

COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE [astronomy] (1) The universe is uniform, homogeneous, and isotropic* (2) The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused the conditions of temperature that prevails today.5 (3) Our existence necessarily puts some constraints on the evolution of the universe.^ (4) Associated anthropic coincidences support the thesis that God exists and does not support supernaturalism."
(Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp60)

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE [astronomy, genetics](Brandon Carter, b. 1942; theoretical physicist, British mathematician) (1) The nature of the universe is constrained because of our presence as observers. (2) Life, even if abundant on many worlds, is only an infinitesimal portion of t h e cosmos. The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused t h e prevailing conditions. (Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp9)

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics
⁜→ Wayfarer, et al,

(OPENING) It would be rather unwise of me (or anyone) to dismiss Karen Armstrong's perspectives just out of hand. But I believe she has a much more narrow view of Metaphysics than I. All the branches of science were once a form of philosophy. But science evolves, just as humanity evolves, and just as views on how humanity knows what it knows, and by what means the knowledge was acquired.

↪Rocco Rosano: — Wayfarer

"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world."
— universeness

Have a read of Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.

(COMMENT)

We know that when we study the central themes of cause and effects, the probability for change, and the reality of the universe as we evaluate the outcome relative to the first principles. In this regard, "physics" and "metaphysics" have very similar goals and objectives. They both research the universe and the reality to which they belong. Yet, they use different techniques, processes, and methodologies (accumulated truth). This becomes obvious when we examine the duality (wave • particle) of the electron.

Both Physics and Metaphysics will have hiccups from time to time. But as long as humanity has a belief in the supernatural, Metaphysics will have the advantage over physics.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics
⁜→ Jack Cummins, Jackson, et al,

(OPENING)

Aristotelian metaphysics (the study of reality) generally transcends the boundaries of the laws of physics (natural laws as understood at any single point in time). As our friend "Jackson" points out, "It is similar to the problem of skepticism. Doubt does not lead to knowledge." Scientists do not need Metaphysics to shape their critical thought. "Metaphysics" (as a general rule) cannot be subjected to the processes of the scientific method. So here we have the views of each end of the spectrum.

(THE CONDITIONAL STATEMENT BECOMES)

IF Metaphysics" CAN NOT be included as "Science" and is excluded from "Philosophy" THEN where does Metaphysics belong?

...
I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. In the volume, ' Existentialists and Mystics', Murdoch describes the way in which the understanding of language paved the way for the logical positivist approach, including Ayer's criticism of metaphysics.
...
I am not suggesting that such an approach is mistaken, but, on the other hand, it may be that the ideas of the system building of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza are still important. On this forum, many do refer to them and value their writings. Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

(COMMENT)

The outcome of this conditional vantage point is to ignore the existence of "Metaphysics." And this becomes the solution analogous to the assumption that → with death brings an end to a particular line of thought. Some 2300 years later, we still remember Hypatia of Alexandria and her death at the hands of the clergy.

IF you eliminate Metaphysics from that which is a traditional alternative study and thought, THEN it stands alone as an island outside the criticism of science. Academia CAN NOT challenge that which they CAN NOT define and recognize. By default, "Metaphysics" reside on the threshold -
distinguished as a conceptual alternative with its own frontier.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→ schopenhauer, et al,

It does not matter if you are studying ECON 101 or ECON 501, the First Principles in Econ hold just as true as the First Principles in the cornerstone sciences. They simply do not change (with any regularity).


(COMMENT)

What I think you are exploring is the stimulation of manufacturing and commerce, which are made more available through monetary manipulation, the availability of credit, and interest rates.

]
◈ Production is a function of resource costs, the credit (at a better rate than competitors) to meet the cost factors in terms of effective manufacturing, the ability to employ the most effective manufacturing techniques, and the ability to maintain dominance in workforce development and funding R&D.

◈ Consumption is driven by its affected by the network and infrastructure supporting vertical and horizontal integration. Consumption is either positively or negatively impacted by the quality of the end product. And consumption is driven by the marketing of the product and offering what the consumer finds attractive at a reasonably affordable cost.

Yes, of course, there will be common threads that run through the fabric of Economic Programs from the very basic to the most advanced. And you can entire libraries on the Economics of this, that and the other things. But enlist other forms of mathematics, Economics can very accurately describe the triggers leading up to major significant events. It can very accurately outline the temporal incidents that lead to a crash, major collapses, and bubble bursts (just to name a few), but it is not like tools that provide automatic braking. It does not render a sufficient warning relative to future adverse events. (Just to name a few.)

◈ The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
◈ Enron Scandal
◈ Major Bank Failures
◈ The integrity of the Big Six Accounting Firms in their responsibility for the S&L Scandals
◈ The $15 Trillion Dollar Taxpayer bailouts of the To Big to Fail Banks.

Production and manufacturing Sink Holes: One of the biggest examples of this is the problem of outsourcing manufacturing jobs. It has become a national security issue. Probably ≈ 40% - 50% of the parts in your computers are manufactured outside the US. And while the Major US Transnational Corporations will be quick to point out that these corporations do not owe Americans a job, As high tech as our electronics in cars, planes, trains, and computing tools, should overseas Pacific Rim Nations want to put the squeeze on the US, all they have to do is withhold critical parts.

Well, I'll shut up now and move back to the shadows.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→. et al,

(COMMENT)

Production and Consumption are basic factors that drive the economics of a given system → but as we apply Economics today, the VeryFirst Principle in Economics is that: Every choice has an opportunity cost.

We evaluate our continued existence (humanity) as having an opportunity cost.

The "Production Possibilities Frontier" (PPF) is a comparative analysis and prediction of two products competing for the same resource.

The two Goods or Services create consumption budget constraints that set the condition for the market. It is the continuing struggle over the cost of the resources that mark the production curve.

Each decision made concerning the available production represents the "opportunity costs" that drive the budget constraints.

(´ ∑ Ω )

Every choice has an "opportunity cost" associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R