it's puzzling that you don't subscribe to Platonism and assert that the set of all sets has ontological value. Can you lay out your reasoning here? — Wallows

the set of all sets is the set of all memories, and Memory, that is, a perfect, infallible, Absolute Memory, just the same as the set of all sets, both contains itself and does not simultaneously. This Absolute Memory is identical with the Law of Identity itself, meaning that each change occurring within the Absolute Memory is equal to itself so long as it exists, and is stored as it is in relation to all other changes in the Absolute Memory. I say that the set of all sets has "ontological value" because there is some thing which is both completely abstract and existent that both contains itself and does not simultaneously. This is the greatest discovery that any philosopher has ever made. That philosopher is me.

Does that mean you admit it is mysticism? — I like sushi

yes, if you still haven’t achieved the mystical union, you’ve yet to achieve the pinnacle of human evolution. as a result, you remain, in comparison to what you could be, primitive and unevolved

Wrong. That is not what was meant. You’re referring to an item preceding language (or rather you THINK you are) with no logical justification. — I like sushi

go into meditation. move your awareness from its natural center to the tip of your finger and back to its center. now, do this again in various places around your body. you’ve just disproven your theory that one’s cognition of their own existence requires language. it really only requires will and imagination in combination with memory.

the only medium logic needs is memory and intuition, as well as will and imagination. this is empirically verifiable within oneself. one doesn’t need to speak or think the words “I exist” to know intuitively that they exist; to say so is beyond absurd.

language isn’t defined by human language. logic is language, mathematics is language, so of course, what am saying is bound by language, yes, but not human language. man didn’t invent logic or mathematics, he discovered it.

the ‘i’ doesn’t necessitate language, only a direct apprehension or intuition of the will as a causal entity, that’s how one knows that they have an ‘i’ and this precedes language.

I am not overreaching. Once you become a mystic you have no other choice but to support a mystical philosophy, and this is an understatement. I speak the truth, read more of my philosophy and you will understand clearly what I mean and why it’s absolutely true.

according to your understanding, it seems, the abstract set which contains all the parts of a thing, and distinguishes it from other things, comes into being when we conceive of it in our minds, while my understanding is that the abstract set precedes our conception of it, and also, preceded the existence of the object itself. According to my understanding, the abstract precedes the concrete, the concrete is contained within the abstract, and abstract thought precedes concrete things which are, in their truest essence, abstract ideas that have become actualized into existence by means of subjectivity relative to an a priori limited sense perception.

think about what it means for you to say that the law of identity, an abstract concept, doesn’t come into being until after man conceived of it, or rather, that the law of identity is a subset of man and man, and nature itself, is not a subset of the law identity. this is what your position asserts. think about what that means, it means that existence can be become non-existence from one moment to the next in time, or be equal to non-existence. it’s quite literally the most absurd position ever held, ever, at any time or anywhere.

A set is a selection of items with specific attributes. To talk of a set of things with attributes is to exclude nothing. — I like sushi

Yes, a set is a defined selection of specific qualities that are distinguished from other sets and also from nothingness, that is, an empty set with no qualities.

This is no more than a misapplication of linguistics to abstract logical concepts. — I like sushi

Sets only have meaning in relation to other possible sets. To talk of ALL sets is nonsense as it is to talk of ‘backwards yellow’ or ‘big shaped flavours’ - such strings of words are of use in a playful artistic endeavor. — I like sushi

sets have meaning only in relation to other sets, OR in relation to themselves. if a set exists, it persists, and if the qualities of a set are changing and the set is therefore expanding, which is true of sets that are ontological and not imaginary, that set is identical to itself from moment to moment in time in its essence, but not identical to itself from moment to moment in time in its quality.

now, ontologically speaking, this set is either contained within itself, or it is contained within a higher set. if it is contained within itself, there is no higher set, meaning that it is the set of all sets, if it is not contained within itself, it is contained within a higher set, and this chain either goes on to infinity and an infinite regress ensues, or it does not, in which case it ends in a set of all sets. it’s very simple.

if the essence of a thing involves only that unseen aspect which remains unchanged so long as it exists, how is that we can have knowledge of the essences of things even despite the fact that we cannot see their unchanging microcosmic structures like 'iron atoms' or a 'collection of iron atoms'? the substance that its made of must be combined with some abstract form for the essence of an object, say, like a hammer, to be known, yes? Where lies the origin of that abstract form? Is that origin different for a natural object as opposed to an object made by man, which is in some sense 'natural' because man is entirely a natural object?

perhaps essentialism, no? — Wallows

I don't believe that all essences are eternal, so I'm not an essentialist, or a platonist in the truest sense of the word. However, I do believe that the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction are eternal, and I've assigned both of these logical identities, ontological values that are eternal as well, which is something that no one else has done. I call this aspect of Existence, "Absolute Objectivity." All essences besides these are not eternal, going back into the past, but are eternal going forwards into the future because of the nature of Existence, all essences are preserved indefinitely after coming into existence.

nothing is identical through time. — Terrapin Station

...what we're talking about can be identical.
— Terrapin Station

Incoherence anyone? — creativesoul

:lol: :lol: :lol:

so the meaning of the word “horse” which means, ‘that’ animal existing in the world, came after the existence of the word “horse”? That means that the existence of the horse itself came into being after the word “horse,” and that horses magically popped into existence when we created a word for them? I think you’re confused. your position holds that words create things magically out of thin air. how is it that you can possibly hold this position and believe it to be true?

wasn't saying "mutually exclusive" either. Meaning is a mental event. It's a type of thought. — Terrapin Station

either meaning and thought are mutually exclusive, which is impossible, meaning is a subset of thought, in which case, the existence of the thought precedes the existence of the meaning of the thought in time. For example, the meaning of the word “horse” preceded the existence of the word “horse,” in time. Now, I could make up a word or sentence in real time like “Terrapin is a duncerou” and the meaning of the word would come after the word, but if it is true that you’re a duncerou, it was true that you were a duncerou before I made up the word to point at it; meaning that meaning is contained within the words and the words not contained within meaning only when the words are made up and don’t stand for a verifiable truth but an imaginary falsehood, in which case those words have no valuable meaning and for all intents and purposes words are conceptually contained in their meaning, and meanings precede words.

Meaning isn't something different than thinking, so what you're asking here makes no sense. You're talking about meaning as if it's something independent of thinking. — Terrapin Station

no, I’m not saying that meaning and thinking are mutually exclusive, only that thinking, that is, a particular set of words with a particular set of sounds, is not equal to the meaning, or that meaning is a subset of those words and sounds, but that those words and sounds are subsets of meaning, meaning, that their meaning precedes their existence in time.

I think that you should just give up, because you’re in over your head here and you just keep digging yourself deeper into the ground. Your inability to rationally address the whole of a statement, and nitpick a single part only, is keeping the conversation from progressing. It was over with the first post, a post which you still haven’t addressed thoroughly. Which of the numbers in the OP does your conception of nominalistic fall under, 1,2, or 3?

You can talk about P at T1, and I can talk about P at T1, and P at T1 is identical to P at T1--so what we're talking about can be identical. You're confusing that with our thinking, our utterances, etc. at T2, T3, etc. As always, what we're pointing to isn't the same thing as our pointing. — Terrapin Station

I was wondering, Terrapig, since it took time for you to speak those words inside your mind, and a duration of time to speak each individual word, how is it that you were able to use a single word that pointed to a single meaning even though that meaning had already changed before you finished thinking about it? It seems odd that you were still able to use a single word with a single unchanging meaning and then combine a multiplicity of them to make a coherent sentence with meaning even though the meanings of each word and also the meaning of the paragraph as a whole ha e already changed. In doing so, aren’t you disapproving the validity of your own theory, in real time? that is, contradicting yourself while you speak the words?

You missed option 4:

There is an underlying catergory error taking that a change in the world involves a change in meanings or abstracted ideas.

In this instance, the nominalist has a position which obtains: all events of time are change (moments of existence), while every meaning is it's own and the same regardless of point in time ( which is, in turn, how change is coherently defined, since being a change, every moment must stand as it own unique meanging ). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't see a need for an option 4, and its very difficult for me to understand what you saying here; it's not exactly worded coherently. the position of the nominalist is that "nothing remains unchanged," correct? Or is this statement not representative of the nominalists view on things? Are you saying that because we can assign a new t-value for each moment of being that, since meaning is in time, presumably, meaning (t1) must be different from meaning (t2); how do you know that meaning is in time, that is, time as it is relative to the senses?

Since you asked, go ahead and pick one. I'd go with the pig. Oink oink. :_) — Wallows

considering the fact that the argument was over with the OP, and everything that happened after that was unnecessary and primitive, I'll go with neither.

More chimp-pig content, please. — Wallows

am I the chimp or the pig?

Truth value is a judgment that an individual makes on each instance, by the way. They do that in conjunction with their meaning assignments on that instance. — Terrapin Station

yet still, the truthiness of the statement is true whether or not the individual makes the judgment of its truthiness or not, so the truthiness of the statement precedes man's discernment of it, in terms of real world truths, this is what we're talking about in the post. You keep trying to turn the conversation down some twisted road that leads to nowhere, for what? to see who has a better grasp on the philosophy of language? We cannot get anywhere because you keep reverting back to your own conception of things, a conception which I've shown to be contradictory.

How would we arrive at the idea that in order for meaning to be meaning, it can't change. It it's changing meaning, it's not meaning at all? — Terrapin Station

you can change the words around and substitute japanese for english, for example, by if the original state is to retain its truth value, the meaning in which those words point must be identical in both cases.

Again, I'm pretty sure that you're not even familiar with nominalism.

Note that what nominalists are saying is that this:

A

and this:

A

are not actually identical.

What they're not saying, and I think you're thinking that they are saying this, is that we get something like this:

A

changing to something like this:

B

They're not saying that.

They're saying it's:

A

and

A

But that those aren't actually identical. — Terrapin Station

I'm saying that A in itself doesn't point to anything, it is a variable which points to some tangible thing or some abstract concept, and that if you are to introduce another variable A, it must point to the same thing or concept that the original A points to, otherwise you must use a different variable such as A2, or B, etc... A is identical to A if A points to the same thing or concept in both cases, but A is not identical to A2 or to B if they point to different things or concepts which are not themselves identical with each other. A can change, and B, or C can be used to point to the same original thing or concept that A originally pointed to and there is no problem, but when you change the one A and not the other which still points to the original thing or concept, then they are no longer identical.

Re this, let's clarify how you're using "senseless" there. Is it basically just a value statement? — Terrapin Station

senseless and meaningless are synonyms. it means that the words and concepts associated with the phrases do not point to an unchanging meaning, but a changing meaning, meaning that the words themselves are meaningless.

Okay, so moving on, we already answered this. They are non-identical instances of the phrases.

Maybe it's not clear what you're asking, though. What sorts of answers would you accept to other "what do they become" questions? — Terrapin Station

see hypotheticals 1, 2, and 3.

Your responses to this do not bode well for you wanting an editor, by the way. You won't even fix something simple that makes no sense as conventional English. — Terrapin Station

There, its fixed, can we move on now, look how much time you've wasted unnecessarily, clearly, the word "that" wasn't supposed to be there.

It makes no sense in conventional English. "<Past participle> to that their own" makes no sense in conventional English. — Terrapin Station

good thing logic isn't bound by the English language.

Is English your first language? — Terrapin Station

there's nothing wrong with the sentence. are you going to nitpick about the first sentence or refute my refutation. If you cannot support your own position, you should stop believing it to be true. I suggest that you don't, as others do, root your philosophy in the false presupposition that all is a subset of nothingness, and then pick and choose which sub-categories of philosophy fall under that presupposition.

"Predisposed to that their own"? — Terrapin Station

Yes, for example, the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' presupposes that nothing is unchanging without providing a logical proof that this is true. the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' exists as an abstract object of memory and imagination, it does not, 'not exist' in the absolute sense of the word; so the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' is subject to, or "predisposed" to, its own claim.

Before you post something, read it out loud. Does that sentence make sense to you when you read it out loud? — Terrapin Station

unchange = not not change....nothing is unchanging = all is changing

It's not as if this is hard to figure out. If nothing is identical through time, then "Nothing is identical through time" isn't identical through time.

You're conflating "not identical" and "isn't the case/isn't true."

Not at all the same idea. — Terrapin Station

this isn’t that hard to figure out, either the phrase ‘nothing is identical over time’ is identical to itself from one moment to the next, or it is not. if it isn’t identical to itself over time, well then what does it become? and if it is identical to itself, you’ve contradicted yourself. so what can the set of words and concepts ‘nothing is identical over time’ which to an abstract meaning, become, without the meaning being lost? According to your understanding, the meaning can and must be changed over time, so what does it become, if you don’t mind me asking? you seem to be avoiding what I’m saying and simply reverting back to your own position which has been shown to be contradictory. like I said, one cannot be a lover of wisdom and lover of lies at the same time.

as nothing is identical through time. — Terrapin Station

how about the concept ‘nothing is identical through time’? does that change over time? don’t you realize that you’re contradicting your own position as you speak of it?

The answer changes even though I say the so-called "same thing," because nothing is literally identical through time. The idea of something being the same through time is an abstraction--and abstraction that itself is different at different times.

What we answer--say that it's a bottle or whatever, is an abstraction that we've created. The object fits the concept we've constructed. Essences are the necessary aspects of our conception, what we require to call some x "a bottle" (or whatever the concept at hand).

I'm a nominalist, by the way. — Terrapin Station

the answer doesn’t change. yes, the qualities of that thing change over time, but the abstract set in which those changes occur within remains unchanged so long as it exists. hence the reason why an apple seed is not a pear seed, a ripe apple is an apple and not a pear, and a rotten apple is an rotten apple and not a rotten pear; no matter what state of being the apple is in, whether it is just a seed or decayed almost completely, all of those changes are still subsumed under its identity set, a purely abyss r set which must precede the existence of any changes which occur within it. if this set did not exist, apples could become inside of trees and not on twigs, or inside of the ground, etc...yet this is not possible, why? Because thins are first differentiated in the abstract before they come into being.

That abstract set doesn’t come into being after the object, and once we’ve conceived of it in our minds. that notion is completely absurd given the aforementioned reasons.

it doesn’t matter what your beliefs are, when provided with truths that contradict your opinion, you are expected to change your opinion to accommodate the truth, otherwise you are not worthy of the title or philosopher.

No such thing. — Terrapin Station

here’s an experiment for you: go grab any object from the room you’re in and hold it in your hand, look at it, and then ask yourself, “what is this object?” a few seconds later, ask yourself the same question, and then again and again..repeat this experiment ten times; and if your answer doesn’t change, then you’ve just disproven yourself, no matter what you say, there is still some aspect which remains unchanged throughout, and that aspect points to the essence of that thing.

If it exists in the imagination does it exist or does it not exist? Start with two: does two exist? And do ideas have no essence and no ontological value? — tim wood

that depends on how you define “exist.” a mental image exists as an object of imagination, but not as an actualized physical object. the set of all sets is presupposed to have no ontological value, that no set of concepts or things which both does and does not contain itself exists.

Essence is simply a way of thinking about things--it's what an individual considers necessary features to apply a concept term as they've formulated the concept. — Terrapin Station

essence is the aspect of a thing which remains unchanging so long as it exists, and as an abstract object in memory thereafter. quality is the aspect of a thing which remains constantly changing so long as it exists.

that’s if you can prove that something cannot exist eternally, but to do that, you would have to prove that existence came into being out of non-existence, or rather, the non-potential for existence to be.

No idea — Devans99

all things are born out of it, return to it, and exist within it at all times, but it was never born, and will never die.

I don't think thats topologically possible — Devans99

meditate on it a little more; what both exists, yet isn’t tangible, and both contains itself and does not contain itself simultaneously?

How can a set contain contain itself and not contain itself at the same time? Surely that is a logical contradiction? — Devans99

on paper, yes, but it may be the case that something existent can both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time, in which case, it would not matter if it’s a contradiction or not.

1. Creating anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time / would never finish — Devans99

2. Creating anything infinity small is impossible; no matter how small it is made, it could still be smaller — Devans99

3. Only in our minds can things continue ‘forever’; in reality this would be akin to magic — Devans99

agreed, there is no actualized infinite. meaning that there is no set of all sets, or there is. as stated in the other thread...

The existence of a set of all sets is only a contradiction if the ground of all being, that is, the set of all sets in nature as opposed to in the imagination, does not reside in a paradox or a contradiction. if the set of all sets in nature has ontological value, and both contains itself and does not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect, there is no contradiction. it just means that the ground of being is paradoxical, which is the case. to say that there is no first set is even more absurd than saying that there is, for to say that there is no first set is to say that all being has its origin in absolute non-existence, or the absence of essnce altogether, or rather, the non-potential for existence to be, yet existence is, so absolute non-existence cannot be, meaning that existence must be contained within that which has an essence, and that which has an essence is necessarily a set. the set of all sets must exist. — TheGreatArcanum

It’s only a contradiction if the ground of all being, that is, the set of all sets in nature as opposed to in the imagination, does not reside in a paradox or a contradiction. if the set of all sets in nature has ontological value, and both contains itself and does not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect, there is no contradiction. it just means that the ground of being is paradoxical, which is the case. to say that there is no first set is even more absurd than saying that there is, for to say that there is no first set is to say that all being has its origin in absolute non-existence, or the absence of essnce altogether, or rather, the non-potential for existence to be, yet existence is, so absolute non-existence cannot be, meaning that existence must be contained within that which has an essence, and that which has an essence is necessarily a set. the set of all sets must exist.

duration is the persistence in the existence of the absolute law of identity; which is purely noumenal. it is not in itself, it exists only as result of the fact that the law of identity can never be equal to its antithesis.

is physics incompatible with physicalism? well, I suppose that depends on if the laws of physics, which have no spatial extension in themselves, precede the existence of physically extended entities, or come into being after those physically extended entities are limited and therefore defined. fools often say that the laws of physics are simply “descriptions” the physical world, and do not exist apart from our conception of them. but they fail to answer the question as to how the world that we perceive is limited in such a way as to allow the abstraction of unchanging laws from it.

if not by the laws of physics in combination with some teleological force, how are things limited and compartmentalized in their limitation as they are?

doesn’t it seem absurd to presuppose that an effect can exist without a cause considering the fact that all effects are conceptually contained (I..e. subsets) within their causes? to say that an effect exists without a cause is to say that, in essence, the effect is causeless and is therefore not contained within a higher set and is therefore identical to the set of all sets.

not entirely, but yes, it deals with subjectivity, that is, consciousness, in part. It deals with the essnce is Being in the absolute sense, that is, the nature of existence before the Big Bang, and also, the omnipresent substratum from which all minds and things continuously spring forth from, and the nature of existence (being) after the Big Bang, and the relationship between them.