Should we be able to identify however we like? Would that be problematic and is there an ethical dimension? Should identities be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

Lets clarify "identity". Do you mean an identity within a group of other people, or a self-identity?

In the case of self-identity, identify yourself however you want. As long as it doesn't get you killed or harm yourself, no foul. In the case of a social identity, you can attempt to identify yourself however you want, but people do not have to accept this.

In the case of a "Police Officer", you're indicating an identity that contains a status behind it that indicates training, accountability, and social authority. If you identify as a police officer without these, then you are a problem to society.

In the case of identifying yourself as a genius, other people are going to have to agree with you. Surround yourself with some people, and they may agree with you, or at least let you hold this belief among that group.

do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

I would argue they can be challenged if someone sees that harm is coming to the individual or those around them. Other then that, unless someone brings those identities into the public purview, it really isn't anyone else's business. Many times our self-identities are how we get through our day. If its working for us, then let it slide.

Space has properties or qualities, for example, space is voluminous; space has volume. Space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. An object simply moving through space is an interaction with space. — daniel j lavender

You claim there is nothing or nonexistence around that single thing. To the contrary, I contend existence, I contend space is around it. — daniel j lavender

What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. Its simply an identity we created to describe the idea of there being a "thing", and then there being "no thing" around it. Your personal identities may or may not represent reality. In the case of space in reality, it is "no thing". You can say its "something", but it is only "some thing" as your personal invented identity. In terms of measurement and reality, it is "no thing".

Let’s say the aforementioned single object split into two and those masses dispersed. What allowed that occurrence? Nothingness, nonexistence with no properties, no capacity? Or space, immaterial expanse with capacity to allow such dispersion? — daniel j lavender

The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. So we can invent a foot being "this" big. Then note that there are three feet of distance between them. That doesn't mean there is "some thing" between the split. There's just an abstract identity we use in language.

To sum, identity does not equal reality. Our ideas of identity that represent reality, are not guarunteed to match reality. You seem to believe that because you can create an identity in your mind, it must therefore exist apart from your mind in reality. It does not have to at all.

The object just split into two. So before the environment was nothingness. But suddenly, magically, when the object split into two nothingness became space because distance. Preposterous. — daniel j lavender

Not preposterous at all. As I've noted, your ability to create an identity does not mean reality has changed. There is still "no thing" in between them. You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. To show otherwise, try to prove it.

Let’s say the single object, rather than splitting, stretches or expands. In that case more material isn’t necessarily added to the object but rather space is shifted, additional space is incorporated into the expanding object covering more area. The material becomes less dense as the object expands. Nothingness doesn’t magically become space. — daniel j lavender

There's no magic here. For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. Its the same as a full 3 split, just at an elemental level.

Space has properties or qualities. Space has demonstrable interaction as illustrated here. Nonexistence, nothing does not. Space and nonexistence are not the same. Space is. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Space (n.): Immaterial medium or expanse; that which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space indicates presence of matter or energy. — daniel j lavender

What is an "immaterial medium or expance" then? Is it a "thing"? There is an old philosophical and scientific theory of "ether". It was the medium which all things traveled through. That has been disproven. https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible?
— Philosophim

It isn’t my motivation. — daniel j lavender

That did not answer my question. That was an evasion because you distrust that admitting your motivation will diminish you in my eyes. It will not. Everyone has a motivation for doing things, and often times I find that people will go to great lengths in inventing and creating ideas that serve that motivation without asking themselves if they're being honest about it.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth that takes our feelings and stamps them to the ground. Until that is your motivation, everything you think of will be tainted in another direction. Sometimes truth fits our worldview wonderfully, other times it does not.

I hold the viewpoint of scientific and culturally normal conclusions. You do not. Why? That may be more pertinent to examine then attempting to negate commonly held knowledge.

Returning to my previous statement:

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence.
— daniel j lavender

Many may argue this to be the quantum field, not space, suggesting particles which appear and disappear are fluctuations in the field. In which case the quantum field and all other activity and phenomena would still be existence, — daniel j lavender

If particles actually disappear, then nothing is left over. In the case of describing a quantum field, no one would object to this. A quantum field is a mathematical abstraction for measurement however, and has not been proven to exist everywhere without any "nothingness" in between it. If this can be proven, then we return to the ether theory as being scientific knowledge. But until that day arrives, "nothingness" is real.

I would say creativity is the reordering of things that exist into a concept that you have not encountered before. So for example, I take a bunch of legos and come up with a new structure or way of putting them together with glue that will decay after a day. I make this nice lego structure, then film the blocks falling one by one as the structure decays in real time. I then note that if we represents that the glue of society must continually be refreshed or it will decay.

Now is it popular, effective, or profitable creativity? If I presented the format correctly, maybe. Being creative doesn't mean what you've created will be appreciated or valued by anyone else but you. Because you are putting together something that very few, or perhaps no one else has done before, you need to put it before lots of people to see if its something they appreciate or value.

I do wonder how ideas of creativity are socially constructed and to what extent do some pursue their creative quests in relation to social circumstances and luck. — Jack Cummins

The reality is that creativity is most often a failure in the eyes of many people. Something too alien or outside of one's comfort zone makes many people uncomfortable. Creativity often times breaks unspoken and sometimes spoken rules and norms of society. How do I know this? I am a creative person. Its gets me in trouble, a LOT. Some people despise or do not want to see my view points. Other times you might hit gold on something creative, and some may love what it brings to the table.

All people have strengths and weaknesses. To be creative, yet understand what society wants, be socially stable, good looking, have access to money, and charismatic is a combination needed for success that extremely few people have on their own. The reality for most of us is people succeed through collaboration. Most of the individuals who received recognition throughout history had a team or friends that were just as important and a part of their success as that individual was. One person may get the "credit", but they could never have done it by themselves.

For a creative person to have success, they need friends or business minded people around them who can help find the valuable bits of creativity within the mounds of trash that are produced. They need people who are NOT creative, who understand how the world exists today, and what people today want and need. Further, the creative person needs people around them to provide them acceptance, time, and many times money to provide an environment where a creative person can just focus on their work.

Creative people in such an environment are invaluable to society. Creative people outside of such an environment may be seen as crack pots, socially inept, or failures who need to go get a real job. Good question Jack!

Note how no one can answer why they themselves need to be governed. I expected as much. It’s always someone else who needs to be governed, like the murderer in your condescending fantasy. — NOS4A2

It was not intended to be condescending. You missed the point. The murderer does not think they are wrong. The murderer does not believe they need to be governed. They think they have no blind spots or need for others. But this simply isn't the case. No one is a one man perfect army. You and I are no different in our personal blindness and bias. WE need governing, because WE are no different from one another in our myopic view of our own perfection, capabilities, and self-sufficiency in relation to other people.

The only people who do not need governance are those who live in the woods somewhere away from other people. Whenever two or more people have to interact, fledgling governance begins. Perhaps its a mutually negotiated outcome. Perhaps its one person overpowering the other. Whatever happens, implicit and explicit rules in how you both interact with one another begin. And if one of you doesn't follow it? Consequences of some kind ensue.

As to why people use examples of others and not themselves, is because no one wants to admit their flaws. Because then the reply will be, "Well YOU might have those flaws, but I do not." This is incorrect. You have flaws Nos, plenty of them. I do as well. Our flaws and desires are different, and if we have to interact with each other, there are spoken and unspoken expectations and behaviors between us is there not? If you or I behave a certain way on these forums, will we not be reprimanded? Do you honestly think the forums would be a better place if there were no rules or moderators? That is basic governance. And it is absolutely needed for groups to work together with a mutual benefit.

Now, to be fair to you, perhaps you observe there can be negative consequences of governance. No one would dispute that. There are positives and negatives to almost every system and choice we have in life. To ignore the negatives and only see the positives, is as foolish as the other way around.

Governance is an absolutely needed tool/descriptor of relations between humanity. Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But its incorrect use does not mean we do not need the tool when the job calls for it.

I don't think I should be governed. I'm an adult who can make my own choices in life. I went down to a nice farm the other day and introduced myself to the folks down there. I was interested in country life. I saw that they lived off the grid, self-sufficient, independent, and happy. They let me stay the night, which was wonderful of them.

Later that night after I killed them in their sleep, I woke up in the morning happy that I had gained the sense of peace, and land, that they had. It was fun picking some of the tomatoes that had ripened and eating off of the land as God intended. I stayed for a few days until I got bored and moved on, but I don't think I'll ever quite forget the experience of being completely free and self-sufficient out there in the wilderness.

NOS, your problem is you see the world only through your viewpoint, and no one else's. Also, you believe, like the gentleman above, that there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint of the world. Many of us walk around as individuals thinking we have it all figured out. We don't. We need other people to point things out to us, and at times, stop us from doing terrible wrongs to others. People who participate in society without issue understand this.

Now I don't think you yourself are a bad person or that you would have done anything to those folks. But you have an incredibly high sense of your own self-worth and capability. You're the guy who believes they would survive the zombie apocalypse. You see the world's truth, and cannot understand why others do not. So of course to you, you see government as worthless. To help, you have to realize its not about you. You alone don't matter in the equation. Government is about people, every shade, and type. Government is about people who would not survive the zombie apocalypse, those who would enslave and kill others, and then people like you who would be just fine dodging zombies all day with your stockpile of food and water.

If you want to understand why people need to be governed, the answer is to meet more people. Government is a tool of the human race to ensure survival of groups of people. Different groups of people have different needs that good governments serve.

In my experience, political discussion can easily turn into a poisonous cancer that can warp even the most gentle people into insane psychopaths. That is because political discussions are often about identity and power, and rarely invite people who are open minded and seeking truth. They should be heavily moderated to ensure they are philosophical discussions, and not emotional rants.

Growth is what is desired. Growth can be uncomfortable, but there is something to be gained at the end. Suffering is just undue stress and destruction. There is no profit at the end.

↪Philosophim Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn. — A Christian Philosophy

That's a nice analogy that sums it up!

↪Philosophim Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions. — A Christian Philosophy

I'll add some details to my simple reply. Philosophy to me has always been about finding definitions that fit successfully within the world. What is "good"? What is "knowledge"? Such questions require philosophers to construct solutions that are also of the world. Successful philosophy becomes science. Failed philosophy is still in the process.

On the same token, science sometimes discovers things which have no definition. And thus philosophy is needed once again.

Lets simplify this further.

You can murder 10,001 people to prevent one man from murdering 10,000 people, or not murder anyone at all.

The correct answer is not to murder 10,001 people.

Since you've also included that the dictator may not actually murder anyone, this becomes even clearer. You do not murder anyone.

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves.

Very simple, you are forgetting that you are an observer. As long as you exist as something separate from A, then you have a relative entity to A. If only one thing exists, you do not exist. In which case there is no concept of A, nor any concept of there not being A.

Logic is the necessary resolution of our ability to create form and substance out of the infinite. Unlike a camera which does not identify what it sees, humans can look and say, "Oh, that's grass, and that's a sheep." "A" is 1. And if you combine 1 and 1, you can come up with a concept called 2. Logic is simply the consequence of our ability to create discrete experiences in existence.

Wonderful analysis as always Philosophim: let me try to adequately respond. — Bob Ross

Likewise Bob! Despite my points against your essay, I am always impressed by your creativity, open mind, and thought process. Lets dive in again.

I would like to clarify that neither “in toto” nor “in total” are concepts that directly entail an infinite: the former is a conception which is conceived (i.e., defined) as holistic, whereas “in total” is the conception of the summation of its parts (i.e., in content). — Bob Ross

For me, the confusion about toto came because your previous paragraph talks about infinity. You then mention toto is a concept without bounds, which implies infinity. But if I'm understanding correctly, we're really talking about form, vs what makes up that form. So for example, a tree is a form. All the indeterminate encompassing (possibilities?) which can make up the form of a tree are toto, where as if we could know all the possibilities, we could summate those in total.

But then there seems to be a contradiction here:

For example, I can manifest a conception of a set of integers {1, 2, 3} and determine that the summation of the parts as 6: the former is a conception in toto, and the latter is a conception of that conception in total. — Bob Ross

If a set of integers is 1,2, and 3, aren't the total number of integers 3? If we're listing the set, then we can say the collection is made up of 1,2, and 3, and we don't need the word toto.

for an absolute minimum at y = 2 indicates that f(x) is never negative ys and the limit from the right being infinity tells me that even if the limit to the left is a finite number that the summation of the ys will be infinity.

Again, I would say the concept is finite (that is, bounded), but technically I could be in a state of ignorance or confusion, thusly determining it as indefinite. — Bob Ross

Here is where I also think there is a conflation of words. Bounded does not mean finite. You can have an infinity for example that is bounded by whole integers. All meaningful infinities are bounded. An unbounded infinity, is everything without any defined concept. In the past I've called it "the sea of existence".

Bounded can also refer to the finite. So I could have a set of integers bounded between 1 and 4. Those integers would be 2 and 3. My point in the earlier post was to note that when we speak of meaningful infinity, it is always bounded. It may be bounded by the idea of, "All integers". So that would be an infinite set of numbers that precluded any fractions. This is the same as stating, "All integers less than y=2".

Thus if the following is true:

An infinite content can be determined in total. — Bob Ross

then all meaningful infinities can be determined in total. This again leaves me wondering where toto falls. Again, the overall feeling I get from your essay is more that toto describes the indefinite, or the unknown. The toto number of trees a person can conceive of is an indefinite concept, but one we can conceive of with some type of limit. It is not infinite due to a person's limited life span, but one cannot actually count the number of possibilities.

We can also imagine the idea of an infinite amount of possibilities one person could potentially imagine, even though in reality there are only a limited amount they actually imagine. I could see this as the infinite version of toto that expresses indefinite form. The problem is provability, which of course one can never do with the indefinite.

But again, I'm still not sure we have a clearly defined and applied term of "toto". I think it loses its use in your paper because I believe there is a misunderstanding of infinity and the term bounded. With the idea that all meaningful infinities are bounded, and that we can also bind finite sets, how can toto be used clearly without any ambiguity?

Infinite form and infinite content

This is the realm of sine qua nons (and, in virtue, the principle of regulation): a concept which is repetitive affirmation of negations would be an example of it. This kind of form entails, I must add, only one of its kind as a conception (and not just merely in existence). — Bob Ross

So back to this then, infinite form and content would be all possible forms one could give within all of infinity. This again is the unbounded infinite, or all of existence that one person could form. If you remember our conversation, a form as I'm seeing it would be a "discrete experience". I have largely avoided referencing the terms in my previous paper, as I do not want to distract from yours. But I feel this accurately communicates my intentions easiest, so I will do so here. This is the form within the infinite. So all possible forms would be all possible discrete experiences.

So within all possible forms, you propose a concept that if this concept does not exist, neither can any other concept. Without this discrete experience, no other discrete experience can exist for example. While I am ok with the idea of this, I still am having difficulties seeing how the principle of regulation is this sqn.

Only repeating myself once, you still have the problem of a thinking thing that does not derive. I've mentioned before that you would have to analyze other thinking things besides humans to show that all thinking things derive. At best, you can claim that all humans of a certain intellect derive. I have no problem with this.

At a conceptual level beyond all of this, I would still assert that one must come up with a concept first before one can derive from the concept. The sqn to me would be that one must be able to conceive some form within the unbounded infinite. Without this, no other form can exist within the infinite. From there you could derive the principle of regulation, but I do not see it as a sqn itself. So if you are to assert that the PoR is a sqn, how do you deal with the above concept? Is it not true that the real fundamental is the ability to first conceive of a concept, before one can derive from that concept?

Great work again Bob, I look forward to hearing from you!

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc.
— Philosophim

How do you know???? — baker

You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.

Death does afford a peace, in a sense, even if you can't feel it. — Darkneos

If you can't feel it, it isn't peace. It does not afford peace in ANY sense.

You can rest knowing the pain will pass and you won't have to do anything anymore. — Darkneos

No. You don't know anything. You don't get to rest. You don't get ANYTHING. Your last memory will be pain, and that will be the last thing you know. There will be no sigh, no relief, no calmness, no anything. Whatever you have in your last moments will be the last thing you experience.

I think you are giving death less than it is. — Darkneos

No, you are giving death MORE than it is. You think there is something. Some feeling, some assurence etc. There. Is. Nothing. There is not even the realization that there is nothing. There's no you staring into a black void. There's no, "Finally, I'm at rest." You're gone, period.

Why deal with one's pain when they can just quit? You're still missing the point here trying to find something "Wrong" and that's the mistake you make as much as anyone else does. — Darkneos

Because I'm not a coward. Lots of things in life will try to tear you down and end you. All the cells inside of you fight every day to keep viruses and bacteria at bay. They fight to do their jobs, and live. You spit on that. All the people who spent time and effort raising you to continue life. You spit on that. The fact that you have the gift of sentience when so much matter in the universe will never have it. Its absolutely a waste to throw that away when you should fight for it.

Nothing in life IMO is worth working for when one doesn't have to live. — Darkneos

Well no duh. When you're dead, you don't have to do anything. Because you don't exist anymore. You can't even laugh at society. You're just a corpse to be eaten by worms.

You still aren't getting it. — Darkneos

No, I get it FAR better than you. My sister collects and cuts up bodies for a living btw. She's done organ donations, autopsies, etc. I'm very keen to know what death is. She's seen plenty of suicides. They aren't special. She's described decomposition in detail. How your last meal sometimes rots inside, swells your stomache, and has to be purged before cutting into the rotting flesh.

Death is not beautiful, peaceful, or relief. If you want real beauty, peace, and relief, you only find that in life. You will never find that in death. So get out of your morose state, stop feeling sorry about yourself and the world, and start working to actually get beauty, peace, and relief in your life. Looking at death for your such things is cowardly, lazy, and incredibly ignorant.

What you say has merit, but consider this edge case :

A man will be tortured for hours for information he does not have. He will then be killed. Is it reasonable for him to grab at a means to end his consciousness, if he knows all this with certainty ?

Or consider, more typically, a person aware that they are sinking into dementia...Are there states worse than death ? So that death is to be sought ? My position is yes. — Pie

I agree with you. But this is not the OP's case.

I think that their point is that they do prefer non-existence but they are not a huge fan of the road that leads there. In other words, the find life to be better than an overwhelmingly negative end, but not necessarily more desirable than one that would most probably be peaceful. — DA671

The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.

To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death.

That would be wrong to say. I talk to others because, well what else is there? I mentioned the goal was to make life tolerable until the end. Just because I talk to people doesn't mean I enjoy it, I don't hate it either.

I do prefer death to living, to not have to do any of this anymore, but I must live as I have no other option at the moment.

It's like you read nothing I said. — Darkneos

Ridiculous. This is a philosophy forum. Logically, you live because you choose to live. If you truly preferred death more, you would die. If you're interested in a "woe is me" or "life is pain" conversation, this isn't the place.

Further, I've had times in my life where pain and emotional despair was unbearable. I've felt the urge to suicide before. But I made the choice to continue to live. That logically means I preferred life to death, despite all the nearly unbearable misery. What a pathetic human being I would have been to whine to others that I preferred death as I continually chose to live again and again.

You don't get to choose life, then say you prefer death. That's illogical. That's just whining about life. When this clear logical discrepancy is pointed out you whine some more. No wonder people tell you to go to therapy. You should listen to them. Your life sucks, so do something about it and improve it.

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc. You're just dead. You won't be able to tell people how different you are anymore. You won't be able to chat with friends or family about how much of a chore life is. You won't be able to post on the philosophy boards in the hope of conversing or thinking.

You'll be gone. There will be no you. It will simply end. You won't even get the satisfaction of enjoying it or "being right".

You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.

So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't.

Likewise, I also agree that two unbounded infinites is a contradiction in terms and, therefore, I will interpolate that into the essay (as I believe I can prove it without further axiomatic importations).

In other words, “one” sine qua non is not “one” in the sense of a numerical whole but, rather, in total; that is, the analysis of what it approaches without the ability to encapsulate it. Perhaps a distinction of a “numerical one” (i.e., “in toto one”) and a “in total one” would be useful in the essay? — Bob Ross

I may have been focusing too much on bounded vs unbounded when I think toto and total are really the focus in your essay. I think what I'm trying to note is that no matter how you shake it, toto and total are both bounded infinities. But I honestly don't think that's important to your overall concepts and where you want to take the essay.

So with this, let me make sure I understand your definitions of toto and total without the use of bounded and unbounded infinities, but just infinities. Instead, let me relate it to concepts if I could.

Lets look at the concept of "trees". A tree can be imagined an infinite number of ways. In toto seems to be close to "realized".

"In toto, on the contrary, cannot be conceived for a given concept without admitting of that concept bounds (in form). " - Foundational Metaphysics

So if I were relate this to trees, perhaps we could say its the realized number of trees for just one person. But, just because we have a realized a limited number of trees, it does not negate the fact we could keep realizing more. In fact, an infinite amount of trees if we so desired.

To my mind, the words total and toto is more like potential vs. actual. If I imagine the total amount of trees I can conceive of, its infinite. But if I imagine the tota number of trees I can conceive of, this seems to require a form of some sort, like trees. But, when speaking in total, I require some word like "trees" as well. There's no real difference in this instance, because both are still the unrealized concepts of trees themselves.

Instead of using both tota and total as representatives of infinity, perhaps one should represent infinity, while the other represents what is realized within the potential infinite. Infinity after all, can never be fully realized by any being. It is a concept of an unending pattern. I think this is also where you're implicitly intending to go, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So for example
1. The total number of trees I can realize is the unformed potential of all possible trees. As they are unformed, we cannot establish them all. It is an unending pattern.
2. The toto number of trees I can realize is the actual number of trees I realize (perhaps through my life? Or X time?). Perhaps in your original conception we could say if you lived an infinite time, the toto number of trees would be all the trees you actually conceived of during your infinite life.

The point that I want to note is that there is no actual infinity, only a potential infinity. As we are limited beings, the actual of what we are cannot be noted in terms of infinity.

I also don't think this hurts your essay. If we go to the principal of regulation, we can then apply the concept similarly. The total number of derivations I'm able to make is infinite. The tota number of derivations I have made are X. We can derive from concepts in two ways. I can derive a concept post, or subordinate, that follows from my current concept. Or, I can also derive a concept pre, or superordinate, that creates a concept that one could use to lead to the original concept.

As an example I could create the concept of a man on a moon. Then I could create the subordinate concept that, "The man traveled there from Earth". Taken without the consideration of derivation, one could say, "Ah, the man traveled to the moon from Earth, that's why they're on the moon." While the order of time or logical consequence might indicate it as the "beginning", in order of derivation, it is actually the second concept conceived of.

As such, we could say the toto number of concepts would be the derivation chains I've conceived of, but in total, there are an unrealized infinite I could conceive of. Is this along the lines of your thinking, or am I still missing or confusing something?

This leaves the sqn. What I feel you are trying to imply is that a sqn is what is required for the potential of derivations to exist at all. Because the total number of derivations I can make is unrealized, we're not going through and cancelling a "set" of all unrealized concepts I would actually make, but the total potential of what I could make. Because this is unrealized infinity, there are no "numbers" or actuals to negate, only the potential itself. Does this work?

If this is the case, you're noting that the principle of regulation is a sqn, because without the principle of regulation, there can be no derivation in potential. If derivation could only be done with subordinates, it would miss the picture of the superordinate. If derivation could only be done with superordinates, it would miss the picture of the subordinate. And if a being did not consider anything subordinate or superordinate, there would be no derivation at all.

For me, this is where I think the essay runs into problems. Noting that derivation has both superordinate and subordinate concepts is fine. But those are simply definitions we can realize. What is to prevent a person from defining derivation as something that is only subordinate? What if they made a different word for constructing a superordinate, and did not find that was a derivation at all? What if something has a completely different thought process than ourselves?

For example, if I were to postulate a concept of “a being that cannot derivate”, then I am doing so by means of deriving something which cannot derive. — Bob Ross

Yes, you are doing so, but you didn't negate the fact that the being could not derivate. And this being may be a highly intelligent being, even another human. Such a human could not use the the PoR. But this is basically because we have defined it as such right? If something cannot conceive of both superordinate and subordinate ideas, by definition, it cannot derivate. The PoR is not a universal concept that can be used or understood by all thinking things. It is a descriptor of certain logical processes of some beings.

But here is where I don't see a problem. The PoR is a concept that can be used and understood by many thinking things. I don't think you need a sqn to assert the PoR as a concept to derive other concepts. I think its a fine proposal that can be demonstrated, used effectively, and agreed upon by most people. Is it a necessary concept to thought itself? No. But is it a fine concept that I believe you will use to derive and explore other interesting and possibly useful concepts? Yes! So please continue Bob.

So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are. — T Clark

Sounds good to me T-Clark. You've cited the correct people for this conclusion. While this is a nice summation of several different findings, do you have anything of your own to add? Should we change how we approach life? Does this affect morality? Or is it simply a nice result you wanted to share with us all from what appears to be a lot of research on your part?

I think that our dispute first lies in whether an “unbounded infinite” is valid as a concept — Bob Ross

Yes, I think this is really the issue. Lets see if we can put this in terms of math.

You already mentioned that the infinite X is bounded if we use actual numbers. The only way to really capture an unbounded infinite is not to use numbers at all, but the relation itself, where is is not limited by any number or dimension. I have no problem with this. What I will attempt to demonstrate is that there is only one unbounded infinite, and the X "without numbers" is it.

Your original bounded infinite could be represented as
X = Y with limit 5. Here we have X is fine as long as it doesn't equal 5. But if X is bounded as soon as numbers are used, then as soon as a number is used in the equation, it is also bounded. So X = Y with a limit of 5 is a bounded infinite by the limit.

But lets go further. X = Y is really a limit of "Whatever Y is, X is. We can say we won't assign actual numbers to X, but there is a number, a bound within the formula itself that acts exactly on a limit. That limit is that Y will always be X, and Y cannot be anything but X.

The above may be confusing, so let me add another detail. 2X = Y. Now we explicitly have a number in which Y will always be double X. Even if we don't use actual numbers in X or Y, this double explicitness is a limit, or a bound. Referencing the previous X = Y, lets change it to 1X = 1Y, which is equivalent.

Ok, if X, unnumbered is an unbounded infinity, while all the rest are bounded, can we have multiple unbounded infinities. Can I just say Y without using actual numbers and have that different from saying X without actual numbers? Besides the symbol itself, they are both identical. X is unbounded, and Y is unbounded. They are not bounded in relation to one another. If they are not bounded in relation to one another, they are not different from one another. Neither has any limits, so they are both the same.

Lets now translate that to words, context, and meaning. As soon as you put a limit in words, context, or meaning, you are no longer talking about an unbounded infinite. You are talking about a bounded infinite.

Now, this still doesn't convey the whole idea fully. We now have to change it to words, meaning, and context. To represent X, we need unstated words, unstated meaning, and unstated context. The moment we state anything, any "number", we are now within a bounded infinite limited by the expression of that word, meaning, and/or context.

Can we have a sine qua nons for an unbounded infinite. Yes, but there is only one. That would be "not X". If not X were true, then X would not follow. Anything more specific may be a sqn for a bounded infinite, but it cannot be a sqn for an unbounded infinite.

The same applies to the principle of regulation. Within X words, Y meaning, and Z contexts we are still bound by words, meaning, and context. Let simplify this further. W = { X, Y, and Z } all without "numbers" or explicit individual representations. W is still bound by X, Y, and Z. The only way for W to be unbounded is just "W".

So I do not think it can be shown the Principle of Regulation is a sqn. There are specific words, such as principle, regulation, of, that are understood within a particular bounded infinite meaning, and in particular bounded infinite contexts. Can thinking things within this limit form and use conclude the logic of the principle of regulation is necessary. Absolutely. But can this be concluded from "W" alone? No, I don't believe it can.

To clarify on

p1. A unbounded infinite is a concept — Bob Ross

No, I'm not stating this. I'm stating an unbounded infinite is not a concept. The moment we create a concept within it, we are now within a bounded infinite. As such, there is only one unbounded infinite. Anytime any explicit infinite is proposed, it is by nature bounded.

That being said, this does not mean you should give up on the principle of regulation as a basis for a theory. I think it is a fine starting point, and I know I, and probably many in this discussion would love to see where your mind takes this. I would hate it to be stopped by something as trivial as a debate over infinity.

You shouldn't need sqn's to prove the principle of regulation to logically thinking minds. And even if you do, perhaps its something you could come back and show later? Is the concept of a SQN within an unbounded infinite absolutely needed to continue your line of thought from the PoR proposal? If you just started the sentence with, "If we have the ability to derive, the principle of regulation logically arrives," would that hamper what you want to do? I feel you have so much more to say, and possibly introduce greater thoughts that I would hate to see stopped over focusing on what may be a technical, and perhaps unnecessary detail to show us what you have planned.

In my experience in philosophy, it is easy to get stuck on approaches that seem necessary to us when first formulating the idea, but as we evolve the idea, were perhaps not as necessary or important as we thought to those who are reading our papers. Consider your readers so far. Very few have argued against the PoR, but almost everyone has a problem with your views of infinity. Now we may all be wrong, and you may be correct. But is it necessary at this time to focus on the infinite as such, or can this be shelved or stated another way that allows your readers to focus on the first premise they can readily accept?

I realized, to keep it brief, that even if I concluded that there was no foundation to derivation, or no derivation, it is all by means of the principle of regulation (or whatever one wants to call it). — Bob Ross

This right here is where I think you should go into detail. Prove not only to yourself, but that none of us can conclude anything differently. If you do this, I don't think anyone is going to need the infinite. How in the absence of derivation must we all necessarily have the principle of regulation? If I am not a being able to derivate, could I conclude I could not derivate?'

I look forward to your work Bob.

The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. Just because you are not conscious or responsive, does not mean you are not collecting smells, sounds, and even visuals if your eyes are opened by a doctor or your lids fail.

If we could monitor a brain, see it fully dead, then bring it back to life, then we could test. But currently we cannot.

We can also have absolutely no scientific indication that you are anything more than your brain. At best we could say if something duplicated your brain functions, we could say "You lived on." But there's no indication of that either.

Lets think one more time. Suppose there was something that copied your brain patterns, then put it into a new body or machine. Is that really you? You're dead. That's just a copy. And if its just a copy, why would the thing that did the copying need to copy you only once, and only when you're about to die? Why not at your prime? Or multiple copies?

You will die. I will die. Everyone will die. Its an incredibly uncomfortable proposition and one that is difficult to imagine. When we die, we'll be gone. That's really all we know. And we cannot make good decisions about reality beyond what we know.

Your vote doesn't matter. It won't change anything unless you vote in a small enough election where it's possible for one vote to matter. — Marchesk

That's only if everyone votes. And for everyone to vote, you must vote. Meaning your vote matters.

Voting is not a fight. Not even in the slightest bit. It's an exercise in statistical bureaucracy to find out who people want to hold that office. There's not even the tiniest element of 'fight' in it. — Isaac

That's your belief then. I'll keep voting and have some victories while you can sit home and let people like me decide your future without opposition.

We all can be agree here that China is a dictatorship but you have to accept that they are the power ruling the world right now, so they are not doing the things that bad.. — javi2541997

No, we do not. No, China has a lot of its own problems as well. We're talking about places where your vote is actually free and counted, not a fake democracy. And no, America is not a fake Democracy.

How can I (as a citizen) join the adult's table? Anyone knows the formula? — javi2541997

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? You are not an island. Join a group. Make one. Also consider where your vote matters more. Local politics often times only take a few individuals to make major changes. Start there.

That's just repeating the assertion, not explaining why. — Isaac

My apologies then, I did not understand the question.

That's because it's provably true that dieting and exercise has a very high probability of causing you to lose weight. Hence if you don't do it you're not trying. — Isaac

And yet many people who exercise and attempt to diet do not lose weight. It is no guarantee. Of course voting does not mean you'll get what you want. But its one of the few viable processes of expressing what you want. You're also viewing yourself as an island. People vote. That means you can convince people in your community to vote as well. You can advertise. You can run for office yourself.

Take the opposite, that you can't vote at all. That you can't congregate with others to discuss what you're going to vote on. You have absolutely no choice to be run by a few others who have all the power. Do you want that? Is that somehow more favorable?

The reason why you don't get everything you want when you vote, is because others vote too. Which means some voters in any vote, will win. Sometimes that can be you, but only if you vote too. Either you're at the table, and will receive some modicum of respect and consideration, or you're at the kids table while the adults make decisions about your life.

In what way does my voting anti-car change that situation? — Isaac

To re-emphasize in my reply to your first post, voting is done by people. You could start a campaign to be anti-car. You can be the first vote. Then go explain to people why. Many people may hear your explanations and think, "Yeah, anti-car is the way to go!" Even if you don't win the vote, if you start getting a sizable amount of anti-car people, the car people have to start considering you. Maybe they'll compromise on cars a bit.

Let me give you an example of some real life statistics. Generally people in their early 20's don't vote very much. As such, candidates don't court them. Each time you don't vote, your demographic is not considered in policies, as those who vote are. And so you sit around thinking, "Politicians won't care about my vote anyway", thus perpetuating the cycle.

If you don't want to vote, don't vote. A lot of people worked very hard and died so you could. But it is not noble, efficient, or beating the system. It is surrender without a fight. You have that choice of course. But if you choose not to fight, don't expect people to be sympathetic when you complain about the outcome.

How do either of these positions differ in the case of voting? It is also impossible to tell the difference between enthusiastic support and reluctant consent from a vote. — Isaac

Your emotional opinion has nothing to do with the outcome of voting. Voting is electing that a group of people that you are involved in should do something, or not do something. Your refusal to participate in the process simply means you don't get any say on what goes on around you. Its like being a child.

And I don't understand why voting then provides the right to complain. If anything, it's the opposite, you actually provided your written consent for the person to run the country for you. — Isaac

Voting does not provide written consent that the country gets to run you. That's consented the day you enter the countries borders. Its consented on every day you decide to continue to live there. Voting is the ability to have a say in how they get to run you, and others around you.

Imagine a person who complains they can't lose weight, but doesn't exercise and eats junk food all day. If they complain, they will simply be viewed as lazy by people around them. The person who is exercising daily and working on their diet gets to complain and will likely receive some respect from the people around them.

Of course not voting is a viable position. Your refusal to participate in who gets to make laws about you is fine. Just don't complain when people pass laws that you don't want. If you want to go with the flow of the river because fighting against the current is too hard, distasteful, or seems impossible, go for it. The current will always be happy to have one less thing it has to fight against.

Hello again Bob! A late reply, but I'll try to refresh where we were.

All possible numbers would be, with respect to the essay, a bounded infinite. — Bob Ross

We're in agreement then Bob! That's what I was trying to point out.

By true infinite, I think you are talking about something entirely different than me, but I could be wrong. — Bob Ross

I don't think so here. I was regressing through all numbers, and noted that all numbers themselves are a bounded infinite as well. I was trying to lead to the point that an unbounded infinite cannot be quantified or limited.

This is where it gets incredibly subtle, but equally incredibly vital: it is not “without it an unbounded infinity is negated” but, rather, without it there are an unbounded infinite of negations. Sounds kind of like the same thing, doesn’t it? I agree, but yet they are entirely different ideas. — Bob Ross

If we are in agreement that numbers are bounded infinites, then whenever we come up with an identity, we are creating some type of bounded infinite. If we use the word "negations" were are implicitly talking about bounds then. I don't think we can say an "unbounded infinite of negations". That's really, a "bounded infinite of negations". I can see an unbounded infinite negated, because an unbounded infinite is the base from which all bounded infinites are formed. But if we say that all possible bounded infinites are negated, isn't that the same as stating an unbounded infinite is negated? Can you give an example showing how they're entirely different ideas?

Is there a superordinate to 1? I'm not sure.

It is entirely possible to declare a particular derivation complete; that is, that it has been sufficiently justified and, therefore, can be put to rest. This doesn’t negate the principle of regulation’s truth: that assertion (i.e., that it has been sufficiently justified) is yet another conclusion which utilized the principle of regulation. — Bob Ross

Thank you, I re-read and realized you had covered that part. Also, you have not had the chance to show how sufficient justification works under your system, so I accept this for now.

In terms of the former (your version), I would have no choice but to concede that a sine qua non is simply a misapprehension; that is, not an unbounded infinite is to necessary conceive of it in toto to thereby flip its affirmation into a denial (i.e., negation): therefore, it would be nothing more than the masking of a bounded infinite under the name of an unbounded infinite. However, in terms of the latter (my version), it is simply the negation, sequentially, of everything (i.e., not …, not not {…}). I think this is potentially where you may be misstepping (or I may be simply incorrect). — Bob Ross

For myself, I think this is a crux of your argument that needs better explication. You are as usual, brilliant Bob, but I'm having a difficult time conceptualizing the latter as something real. In trying, the best I can come up with is that it is some conceptualization that is necessary for an unbounded infinite to be. The best I can think of is that we must be able to make conceptualizations out of/within the unbounded infinite. Because if something could not, then nothing could create any sort of differentiation between bounded, and unbounded. Does this somehow fit within your PoR?

Being in bounded infinites is not a bad thing however, as I believe its the only way we can have concepts. Perhaps we can simply reform your idea into, "A sqn is what is needed for concepts to exist." Basically try to find what is logically necessary for concepts to occur.

Unfortunately, that would defeat the point of the essay, as that is not a foundation (unless we speaking of contextual foundations). Likewise, a sine qua non is not deriving what is necessary for concept to occur, as that is within the sphere of critique of derivation (as opposed to its higher form of performance of derivation). — Bob Ross

This again is where I have a hard time. Without a sqn, nothing can be. Which means without a sqn, concepts cannot be either. The way I read the essay and your explanation, it seems to imply without a sqn, the infinite, bounded or unbounded could not be.

This would be true if the principle of regulation pertained soley to explicated superordinate and subordinate rules. It’s quite literally being postulated as an unbounded infinite of such. — Bob Ross

Again, I think this is really where my issue resides. The unbounded infinite is the source of all explicated infinites. Negating the unbounded infinite, negates all explicated infinites as well. Without a sqn, the unbounded infinite would be negated. And I think we agree there is only 1 unbounded infinite, as more than one would be by definition, two bounded infinites. All explicated infinites are within the unbounded infinite. Which means a sqn is necessary for all explicated infinites to occur as well. If this is the case, then a sqn must stand without contradiction in all explicated infinites. Meaning that if it does not stand within even one explicated infinite, it cannot be a sqn.

As I noted earlier, the burden of demonstrating this is nigh impossible to meet. But this again, is through my interpretation so far that the sqn is a misapprehension. If you can demonstrate your version " it is simply the negation, sequentially, of everything (i.e., not …, not not {…})." somehow is not logically equivalent to my version, then there may be something to explore.

Thank you for your reply Bob, I believe I'm beginning to see what you're going for more clearly. First, lets cover what I mean by the true infinite versus the bounded infinite. Lets look at the true infinite as all possible numbers. Within that infinite, you can have bounded infinites. For example, all numbers that end on the tenth's place is a bounded infinite within the true infinite. A bind is a limit. To speak of an unbounded infinite, is to speak to something without limits.

Within the infinite, I can create many bound ways of comparing numbers. I can create bounded ways of adding, substracting, etc. But does the negation of one of these comparisons negate the true infinity of numbers? No. But if we think about numbers for a second, we realize they are bounds as well. Each "number" is a bounded concept. So we get rid of numbers as well, and we are finally left with true infinity.

When you say a sqn is needed, because without it an unbounded infinity is negated, I'm not sure that's possible. The unbounded infinite is a total, and we can only represent it with a toto, or a bounds of some kind. For the most basic of bounds, we create a number, 1. To your principle of regulation, we can then create the number 2 as a subordinate to the idea that its a 1 and a 1 together. Is there a superordinate to 1? I'm not sure.

The point though, is that all ideas are bounded within unbounded infinity. Unbounded infinity is the stream from which all identities and relations are pulled from. Unbounded infinity is where all bounded infinities are created. An unbounded infinity is something we can never understand in total, but only in toto as well.

So when you declare a sqn is that without it, unbounded infinity cannot exist, it something that I'm not sure can ever be proven. The best you can do is use bounded infinity. But at that point, that seems to defeat the purpose of the sqn. The best we can do is re-create our "bachelor" example repeated among several different contexts. The PoR is no exception.

If we disregard all possible synonyms for "unmarried man" in all possible contexts, would this be a sqn?

It would not, because fundamentally we would have a situation where we are positing “without Y, there’s a bounded infinite of negative judgments”. That claim is not coherent if posited as an unbounded infinite because the omission of “unmarried man” leaves many concepts intact. — Bob Ross

Being in bounded infinites is not a bad thing however, as I believe its the only way we can have concepts. Perhaps we can simply reform your idea into, "A sqn is what is needed for concepts to exist." Basically try to find what is logically necessary for concepts to occur.

The PoR is a logical way of relating concepts. But can a being have a concept without conceiving of superordinate and subordinate concepts? Yes, we can prove this. To have a subordinate or superordinate concept, one must have two concepts. By the nature of a concept being a derivation, one must be formed before the other. If one cannot conceive of a single concept without the PoR, how does one conceive of the first concept?

One must conceive of that first concept prior to the second according to the PoR. That means one must be able to conceive of a concept without the PoR, because prior to the first concept, one has no concepts. If one can conceive of a concept prior to the PoR, than the PoR is not necessary to conceive of concepts. If this is the case, one could also conceive of a second concept that had no relation to the first concept. The ability to create concepts does not necessarily mean one will create derivated concepts, or use the PoR.

Thus we've shown that while the PoR is a way to view derivation itself, it is not necessary to hold or create concepts. Meaning that the PoR cannot be a sqn as the idea of "concepts" itself can still be conceived without it.

Overall, I think the true problem is trying to include unbounded infinity. Perhaps there is a sqn for unbounded infinity, but I don't think the PoR is it.

Snide comments are not an argument
— Philosophim

Irony noted. — Jackson

Ignoring the rest of what I posted noted. Do not troll.

Gosh, wiki. — Jackson

Snide comments are not an argument. Sources are cited at the bottom of Wikipedia. Feel free to post your own source about Aristotle, otherwise you've been shown to be mistaken.

That proves that “unmarried man” is not a sine qua non, which I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) you are thinking it would prove it if there’s an infinite amount of things that could be postulated without “unmarried man”. — Bob Ross

No, that wasn't my intention. What I was trying to note was there are an infinite number of things I could postulate with "unmarried man", that I could not postulate without "unmarried man". If unmarried man did not exist, then the defintions of bachelor and bachelum would not exist. Perhaps the words could still exist, but their meaning could never be "unmarried man", because "unmarried man" does not exist. If we disregard all possible synonyms for "unmarried man" in all possible contexts, would this be a sqn?

You see, as I would argue, that concept of Y, valid as it is by means of derivation, is a bounded infinite because I can abstract further by questioning the grounds of that very concept of Y, thereby invalidating it as an unbounded infinite. — Bob Ross

I think I understand this. Words like bachelor and bachelum all rely on the concept of "unmarried man". Again, it is not the words we are really referencing, but their meaning. Without "unmarried man", any derivations from the concept of "unmarried man" cannot exist. Of course, there are a potentially infinite number of derivations we can establish from "unmarried man" that we could not without the concept of "unmarried man". From the finite springs the infinite, though this infinite is bounded by the finite superordinate.

By “context”, I just loosely meant an idea that is sandboxed. So it is perfectly possible that “A IFF D” is only true within a sandbox, so to speak, and not true universally. — Bob Ross

The problem I see you running into is when you note a "universal" infinite. Having worked with infinite before, its very easy to lose the real consequences of true infinity. Real infinity has no limit. Which means practically any formation within that infinite can also be negated.

Think of numbers for example. Numbers are bounded limitations within true infinity. One such measurement is discrete data versus continuous data. Continuous data is a bounded infinite, such as "height". In theory, there is no limit to how high we can measure. A discrete data point would be 5 feet high.

As noted, continuous data is still a bounded infinite. Without the context of dimension, height just dissolves into the true infinite. There are an infinite amount of potential dimensions that we can create within that true infinite. To your point, I'm noting that the rule of regulation too would dissolve into the true infinite without certain bounded contexts. If a sqn must be true universally, then it must be true in the unbounded infinite.

If you are trying to inquire how it can be proven sans context (i.e., unbounded context), then I can provide further detail: I continually performed abstraction to its highest point, whereat I could not longer abstract higher and, thereafter, determine what (if anything) produces the negation of those abstractions if removed (or it could be thought of as the negation of particulars too, if you will). — Bob Ross

This is still within your own bounded context. I take no objection to there existing a sqn within a bounded context. It is completely true that you thought everything you did, and could only come to one conclusion. But is that true of all contexts, of the true infinity? That has not been proven. Let me give you an example. There are some people who cannot visualize in their mind. As in, they cannot think of images like most people can. They close their eyes, and the world is completely dark for them. Think of the host of conclusions and thinking you've done with your ability to visualize in your head, and then try to imagine the conclusions one can or cannot make if they cannot visualize.

In the same manner, a personal conclusion of thought within your own bounded context does not prove a universal context. In the same manner, we can imagine a creature that can think without the rule of regulation. Its difficult for those of us who use the rule of regulation on a daily basis to imagine this, but we already know that some things think differently from ourselves. This is what I was noting earlier. If you personally think using the rule of regulation, and nothing else, then yes, its a sqn for you. But that doesn't mean its a sqn for something that does not think like you do.

what about the principle of regulation do you think doesn’t hold for a plant that demonstrates it reacts to its environment (which, I would argue, pretty much happens in virtue of them being alive—no?). I certainly don’t think a plant would be able to affirm the principle of regulation, but I think I can affirm that they use it (which is a different claim, I would argue). — Bob Ross

First, there's the idea that we're assuming our own basis of thought applies to all other thinking things. We cannot conclude that just because you and I think in the terms of the principle of regulation, that every other thinking thing does as well. All it takes is one thinking thing that does not, and then we don't have a universal sqn anymore. I'm not saying you can't come up with a universal sqn, but it must be provably true within the true infinite. I don't see the PoR doing that currently.

Second, we can speculate that a plant, or any other creature thinks with the PoR, but we have to prove that. The burden of proof is not on me within the true infinite, the burden of proof is on yourself. And even if we prove that, we must prove it for all plants of that type, then all plants, all creatures, etc. The PoR is not something provable, because it is a bounded idea that relies on certain bounded infinites thinking in a particular manner.

Now, if we have a bounded sqn, we avoid the problems noted above. That of course, brings about new problems. If sqns are bounded to contexts, which context should we choose? I think you know this, which is why you wanted to note a sqn is universal. The ultimate problem is that I believe you have not shown that the PoR is something true universally. As noted above, I'm not sure its something you can either.

That being said, it may be that there are things I still don't understand, so please correct me if I'm in error. I also think the PoR is a fine principle within bounded contexts, and see nothing overtly wrong with it within these bounded contexts. I just don't think at this time that you've provided what is needed to show it is true universally, and not just within the contexts you've been thinking in.

So “without which, not” is meant as an unbounded infinite negative (i.e., if not A, then an unbounded infinite of negative judgments). It is not meant to negate only one particular derivation. — Bob Ross

Could you clarify with an example here? When you mean infinite, do you mean "All possible derivations in total/tota"? To compare again to the bachelor, we could derive another term called a bachelum, which is an unmarried man that is about to be married. Again, we could not derive the term bachelum without the superodinate "unmarried man". As such, there are an infinite derivations we could not create without the concept of "unmarried man", many which we do not directly know or have been invented yet.

A sine qua non is not denoted by being the anchor of a biconditional statement (such as D IFF A); for that could entail that it is only valid within one or a finite set of contexts. For example, it’s possible that A IFF D is true of context C1 but not true of context C2. — Bob Ross

Could you give an example of what you mean by context here? If it is unbounded context, I cannot see a sqn forming simply by the fact language and thinking can change. Lets look at the principle of regulation. A fine principle, but can it be proven that its a sqn in unbounded context? What if something does not think in a derivative manner? This may be due to low intellect, or simply a brain that does not process in such a way. Does a plant think in terms of the principle of regulation for example?

The problem with an unbounded infinite is we can always come up with a situation that negates another.
To your end, I believe you are implying a bounded context. For example, in individuals who have the capacity to only think in superordinate and subordinate manners, we could say the principle of regulation holds. Because people in this context have no other way of possibly thinking, it is impossible to think differently. Among creatures that had alternative thinking processes, the principle of regulation does not apply to them.

Again, please correct me where I am incorrect Bob.

I logically concluded that "it simply is" here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

I have a follow up as well where I go into what that means for the universe. But its pretty simple. There is no reason why anything exists. It simply does. This is logically concluded, not simply an opinion. So what does that mean for us? Honestly, just enjoy it!

Hello Bob, it is great to see you again! I'll address your paper the best I can.

Let me see if I can sum up your argument. sine qua non means "without which, not". Which means, "If this does not exist, this derivation cannot follow"?

As an example, A -> B. But also, C -> B. If we removed A from the derivation, we would still have C. So neither A, nor C, are a sqn. If however we had A -> D, and in the removal of A, it is no longer possible to ever derive D, we have a sqn. Does this approximate the idea fairly?

If so, this is similar to a contrapositive of derivation. Perhaps a way to view it is a bachelor is an unmarried man. The term bachelor is derived from the "unmarried man". Without an unmarried man, there can be no bachelor. A man is a bachelor if and only if he is unmarried. Being an unmarried man is the foundation of a being a bachelor. In this case, we could call "unmarried man" to be a superordinate rule. The subordinate rule would be the creation of the term "bachelor".

I think what you also wanted to note was that a superordinate rule can be a subordinate rule in relation to its previous derivation as well. So, I could look at the term "man", and note (as an example, not denoting the correctness) that some creature with an 46 chromosomes in an XY structure exist, and from there, we derive the word "man". In this case, the chromosomes would be the superordinate, while the term "man" would be the subordinate.

That being the case, we can create superordinate clauses that work, but do not negate the subordinate when removed. It is not necessary that I know of chromosomes to derive the word "man". I could note its a "human with particular reproductive anatomy". Thus while the chromosomes can be a superoridinate to man, it is not a sqn. This is simply a bounded capture of a man, but in tota, not in total.

Let me know if I'm on the right track or it needs some correction Bob!

What you are saying is extremely elementary and boring. Try to say something worth responding to. You want this? — Jackson

If you're going to be a snide person who just cares about your ego, we're done. If you want to chat, engage without the insults.

Art is about a human's personal experience. — Jackson

Could you go into more detail? Does this mean all of my personal experiences are art? Is breathing an art? My heart beat? Driving my car to work? Try to engage with more than one sentence Jackson. We're here to think right? Its not about winning, losing, or being smart. We're just juggling ideas, no judgement.