If order is not restricted to "temporal/spatial", then order is not restricted to unknowable noumena. — Luke
I changed my mind on that days ago — Metaphysician Undercover
Order is a spatial-temporal concept [bold added] — Metaphysician Undercover
They have no spatial-temporal separation, therefore no means for distinguishing one from the other, they are simply assumed to exist as a set. How do you think it is possible to order them when they have been conceived by denying all principles of order.? To introduce a principle of order would contradict the essential nature of these things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Temporal/spatial was just one type of order, fishfry and Lluke gave examples of many other types. So we're not restricted to temporal/spatial order in our attempts at understanding the nature of inherent order. — Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot say what the inherent order is, for the reasons explained. Do you have a problem with those reasons? Or do you just not understand what I've already repeated? — Metaphysician Undercover
You understand what "inherent" means don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover
The question is whether or not it is possible for a set to be free from inherent order, i.e. having no inherent order, as fishfry claimed. You still don't seem to be grasping the issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
he defines infinity as a set whose members can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers. — TheMadFool
I don't know how he reads in the original German, but the above is not how the set theory that came from Cantor works. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I'm fairly confident that what I wrote would've brought a smile to his face. — TheMadFool
He was a deeply troubled man I believe, in no small measure due to Leopold Kroenecker's scathing criticisms of his life's work. — TheMadFool
Yes, it's possible he might get a chuckle at your hapless ignorance. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It wasn't just that Kronecker criticized the work. But it does seems reasonable to think that his professional difficulties vis-a-vis Kronecker might have contributed to his poor mental condition, but I don't think we know for sure. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It is not mathematically possible for an all powerful and all good god to exist, the laws of thermodynamics, which are constraints and not some handwaved rule, apply to even god. Yin-yang and karma and whatnot is all related to thermodynamics and thus thermodynamics and energy predate any god, including the Christian god who might have been here since the big bang but for sure did not cause it. Infinite time means infinite energy increase, which is of course true. The big bang was one of infinite numbers of big bangs generated by some sort of perfect order system completely collapsing according to the laws of thermodynamics because you would need literal infinite rates of energy transfer to maintain a perfectly ordered state. Brian Greene is beyond any philosopher or most physicists — intpath32
captures the essence of Cantor's views on infinity. — TheMadFool
Sure, if "captures the essence" means grossly mischaracterizes with ignorant confusions. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You are trying to draw an analogy between order/inherent order and phenomena/noumena. However, phenomena and noumena are both temporal-spatial, which makes order and inherent order also temporal-spatial by analogy. — Luke
So there you are, still demanding that order must be temporal-spatial. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And after so many days on end of you claiming that orderings are necessarily temporal-spatial, now you recognize that orderings do not have to be temporal-spatial, so what took you so long? It's piercingly clear that there are orderings that are not not temporal-spatial, but you could not see that because you are stubborn and obtuse. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I have rebutted great amounts of your confusions. You either skip the most crucial parts of those rebuttals or get them all mixed up in your mind.
Anyway, to say that there is "THE inherent ordering" of a set, but not be able to identify it for a set as simple as two members is, at the least, problematic. But more importantly, you cannot even define the "THE inherent ordering" as a general notion. That is, you cannot provide a definition like: — TonesInDeepFreeze
In set theory and abstract mathematics. EVERY property of an object is inherent to the object. (Mathematical) objects don't change properties. They have the exact properties they have - always - and no other properties - always. — TonesInDeepFreeze
But the point you keep missing is that you have not defined what it means to say that one of the orderings in particular is "THE inherent ordering". They are all orderings of the set, and they are all inherent to the set. I have put 'THE' in all caps about a hundred times now. The reason I do that is obvious, but you still don't get it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
This started with discussion of the axiom of extensionality. With that axiom, sets are equal if they have the same members. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And it seems the reason you don't get that is because you started out needing to deny the sense of the axiom of extensionality itself, even though you are ignorant of what it does in set theory and you are ignorant of virtually the entire context of logic, set theory and mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Right, inherent order, which I classed as noumenal, appears to be spatial-temporal. But the type of ordering which fishfry demonstrated to me, ordering by best, or better, cannot be inherent order because it is relative to intention, therefore phenomenal.
I don't see the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram. — Metaphysician Undercover
How is intention phenomenal (in the relevant Kantian sense)? — Luke
Intention is an integral part of the phenomenal system — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram. — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the true order, which inheres in the arrangement of objects. If I stated an order, this would be an order which I assign to those objects, from an external perspective, and therefore not the inherent order. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where does Kant say this? — Luke
Also, do you have any intention of accounting for your latest blatant contradiction: — Luke
Before your claim was that the inherent order is what's shown. Now you claim that the inherent order is what's hidden. It can't be both. — Luke
I don't know if Kant ever said, but it's pretty obvious how intention must fit in. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, sorry I must have made a mistake, or perhaps you just misunderstood. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm very well acquainted with your strawman interpretations designed at creating the appearance of contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no contradiction in saying that I am showing you an order which I cannot describe. — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram. — Metaphysician Undercover
If there are points distributed on a plane, or 3d space, the positioning of those points relative to each other is describable, therefore there is an inherent order to them. — Metaphysician Undercover
Look, if the dots exist on a plane, they have positions on that plane, and therefore an exact order which is specific to that particular positioning. They do not have any other order, or else they would not be those same dots on that plane. Take a look at that posting of fishfry's and see the order which the dots have, on that plane, and tell me how they could have a different order, or no order at all, and still be those same dots on that same plane. — Metaphysician Undercover
So if you cannot see order in an arrangement on a two dimensional plane, I don't see any point in discussing "order" with you. — Metaphysician Undercover
I specified the order. It is a spatial order, the one demonstrated by the diagram. Why is this difficult for you to understand? When a diagram shows us an arrangement of dots, it shows us the spatial order of those dots, where the dots must be on a spatial plane to fulfill the order being demonstrated. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are talking about "inherent order". This is the order which inheres within the group of things. It is not the perspective dependent order — Metaphysician Undercover
The "inherent order" is the order that the things have independently of the order that we assign to them. — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the true order, which inheres in the arrangement of objects. If I stated an order, this would be an order which I assign to those objects, from an external perspective, and therefore not the inherent order. — Metaphysician Undercover
if I stated an order, it would be a representation, imposed from my perspective, and therefore not the order which inheres within the object, the inherent order. — Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot tell you the order which inheres within the group of things, because iIwould just be giving you an order which I impose on that group from an external perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you don't know whether intention has anything to do with Kant's phenomena-noumena distinction?
And yet you still use this distinction as the basis of your argument regarding inherent order? — Luke
You tried to draw an analogy between your supposed inherent order and Kant's noumena. When I pointed out that you had already conceded that "many other types" of order are not spatio-temporal and therefore not noumenal, you said that one other type (best to worst) "is relevant to intention, therefore phenomenal". If you don't know whether intention has anything to do with Kant's phenomena-noumena distinction, as you now admit, then you cannot claim that best-to-worst order is "relevant to intention, therefore phenomenal". — Luke
What strawman interpretation? Instead of empty accusations, go ahead and explain how or what I have misinterpreted. — Luke
Pure contradiction. — Luke
I don't use that distinction as the basis for my argument, I gave that distinction as an example which i thought you might be able to understand. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you aware of Kant;s distinction between phenomena and noumena? As human beings, we do not know the thing itself, we only know how it appears to us. Kant seems to describe the noumena as fundamentally unknowable. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, inherent order, which I classed as noumenal, appears to be spatial-temporal. — Metaphysician Undercover
Come on Luke, use some intelligence. Kant did not have to name every instance of what contributes to phenomena for us to place things in that category. If you think I am wrong, and intention ought not be placed in that category, then just tell me. But please give reasons. Simply saying Kant didn't explicitly say it therefore, you're wrong in your analogy, is pointless. — Metaphysician Undercover
You claimed a contradiction when I said I couldn't describe something which was shown. — Metaphysician Undercover
Thanks for all the quotes removed from context. — Metaphysician Undercover
To be shown, or demonstrated does not mean to be stated, I went through that in the last post, and again above. — Metaphysician Undercover
Look, if the dots exist on a plane, they have positions on that plane, and therefore an exact order which is specific to that particular positioning. They do not have any other order, or else they would not be those same dots on that plane. Take a look at that posting of fishfry's and see the order which the dots have, on that plane, and tell me how they could have a different order — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram. — Metaphysician Undercover
But now you say that Kant's phenomena-noumena distinction is not the basis for your argument. — Luke
Yes, but in the posts before you introduced Kant, you were clearly saying that the appearances were the reality (i.e. direct realism), as demonstrated by the quotes. — Luke
You asked us here (prior to your introduction of Kant) to take a look at the diagram and see the order the dots have, and that they could not have any other order. Yet now (after your introduction of Kant) you are trying to convince us of the opposite: that there must be another order - the inherent order - which is different to the order we can see in the diagram. Moreover, you have claimed that the appearance of order and the inherent order could not be the same just by chance, despite your admission that you don't know whether or not they could be the same. — Luke
To return to my recent point, you have conceded that there are "many other types" of order which are not "temporal-spatial", therefore your references to phenomena-noumena (or indirect realism or whatever) do not apply to these many other types of order. Therefore, you cannot claim that there is some hidden order to these other types. While that might be irrelevant to your claims, it is not irrelevant to the criticisms of your claims made by the other posters here. You are the only one arguing that order must involve spatio-temporal phenomena (and/or noumena). — Luke
If you see now, that the entire time, I was talking about the order which inheres within the thing itself, as "inherent order", rather than some perceived, apprehended, or creatively imagined order, you can go back and reread the entire section and clear up your misunderstanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
The inherent order is the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram. — Metaphysician Undercover
Take a look at that posting of fishfry's and see the order which the dots have — Metaphysician Undercover
the entire time, I was talking about the order which inheres within the thing itself, as "inherent order", rather than some perceived, apprehended, or creatively imagined order — Metaphysician Undercover
The order is right there in plain view — Metaphysician Undercover
If you were talking about the inherent order the entire time, and if the inherent order is not perceived or apprehended, then why did you say: — Luke
As I said, the order is right there, in the object, as shown by the object, and seen by you, as you actually see the object, along with the order which inheres within the object, yet it's not apprehended by your mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are these both the inherent order (bolded)? If so, then why do you say "along with the order"? — Luke
So, a professional philosopher. At one point in the article he says: "We are indeed rationally justified in thinking 2 plus 3 will always be 5, because 2 plus 3 is not distinct from but rather identical with 5." My emphasis. So at least one professional philosopher would object to your claim that they are not identical. — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.