Yeah, part of what I'd like to argue is that this kind of approach to things simply is idealism par excellence, and an insidious one at that, insofar as it couches itself in the language of the ‘physical’, despite being a metaphysical (in the pejorative sense) chimera through and through. It always amazes me that those who hew to this kind of view don’t recognise just how shot-through with theology it is. And I don’t mean this as a cheap-shot (like ‘oh science is just the new religion'), but in a properly philosophical key: it shares with theology its ‘emanative’ logic wherein, to botch Plotinus, everything flows from the One and returns to the One - and where the ‘flow’ is just so much detritus and debris. What you call reductive physicalism mirrors, exactly, ancient theological tropes and, from my perspective, is more or less indistinguishable from them. — StreetlightX
You are not aware of what you are arguing:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1293086/how-to-prove-that-a-straight-line-is-an-infinite-set-of-points — eodnhoj7
Reread the argument I presented, you clear do not understand it, nor the axioms of geometry you are arguing. — eodnhoj7
And those intuitions are realist at their core. I am convinced that, whatever ideology we outwardly proclaim, whatever stuff we say the world is made of and however it is parceled out, inwardly we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires. We have some leeway in how we choose to conceptualize it, but there are strong constraints on those conceptualizations that are not up to us to choose. And that is the only ontology that matters. We can quibble about whether chairs or wave-functions "really exist," but that's just semantics. What matters is that there is this recalcitrant something that we all have to acknowledge, on pain of undermining all our empirical knowledge. — SophistiCat
We might also look at the gap between conceptualizations and a more ordinary sense of speeding trucks that might crush us, holes we might fall into, ice that we might slip on...I suspect that (to some degree) this is the dominant 'model'(?) by which other models are judged ultimately. — macrosoft
In fact not only is it in mathematical axioms (line as infinite points), but these axioms are open to further expansion infinitely while each axiom is determined by the framework of proof which extends from it and not the axiom itself. — eodnhoj7
The line as "a injunctive of infinite points" observes the line as composed of infinite lines through these infinite points. The point is a continuum of further points through the line. The line and point alternate between eachother — eodnhoj7
If the line is nor composed of points, but the line is composed of infinite further lines between points, the line is composed of points. — eodnhoj7
Pi = c/d where c is equal to Pi and D is equal to one. The circufermance containing a number of lines equal to Pi observes not the circumferance as a length equal to Pi (and the circumferance is a length...Do you want sources?) But the number of diameters as Pi as 1 line in itself. — eodnhoj7
Look at your examples, they are all things which "might" happen. So we look at the world with a view to how we can prevent, or cause, identified future events. This does not jive with Sophisticat's "we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires". — Metaphysician Undercover
1. A line is an infinite number of points, hence is an infinite number of lines.
The line as infinite points is the axiomatic definition of a line:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&sc=1-40&sk=&cvid=C8ED297B32114AA2A7406E89721E7552 — eodnhoj7
Change my mind and provide a source. — eodnhoj7
If pi is not a length, then neither is 1 units, 2 units, 3 units, etc. considering quantity is a unit. — eodnhoj7
So here is my insult, and you will never understand it:
"I hope you live a long life no different than who you are now." — eodnhoj7
What attacks? I am building a play pen around a child for it to play in and figure itself out.
1.) "The totality of the points comprising the line is in any case infinite."
com·prise
[kəmˈprīz]
VERB
consist of; be made up of.
"the country comprises twenty states"
synonyms:
consist of · be made up of · be composed of · contain · take in · embrace · encompass · incorporate · include · involve · cover · comprehend
make up; constitute.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=comprise+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=comprise+definition&sc=8-19&sk=&cvid=8E4BF20B8D3C440A8BF6EAA80CDD05AF — eodnhoj7
Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..
2. Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..
A 1 foot is contained of 12 inches. It is 1 line composed of 12 lines. The number and line are inseperable.
3. You can keep flailing around all you want, I don't care either way. — Metaphysician Undercover
The ice isn't going to politely melt before I unthinkingly skate on it and break my arm. If I am fixing a roof and tumble off, the ground will not soften as I descend. Or at least I do not live with such expectations, however merely logically possible such things may be. — macrosoft
The point is that you live acting in such a way as to prevent yourself from breaking your arm on the ice, and to prevent yourself from falling off the roof. Why did you want to go skating, or go on the roof in the first place? And how did you get onto that roof? Don't you know that you intentionally put yourself at risk by doing such things? — Metaphysician Undercover
To insist on the mediality of all things is to insist that all immidiacy must nonetheless be subject to a minimal medicacy: there is always the traction of time and space, the recalcitrance of matter to have to deal with (the Heraclitian maxim on nature's elusiveness must be read as a materialist maxim par excellence: 'Nature loves to hide'). — StreetlightX
In a word then, the materialist insists that the world is medial through and through: everything that is, has a density recalcitrant to all ideal(ized) first principles (arche) and immedial fantasies (God being among them). — StreetlightX
The incarnation myth comes to mind. Can incarnation symbolize materialism even? — macrosoft
A perfect separation of meaning from its medium and its compression into an instant functions as a kind of goal, an impossibility that tempts us, perhaps to our benefit at times. — macrosoft
So if I have infinite lines existing as one line, the line is not composed of infinite points? — eodnhoj7
If we decide to put on a new roof to keep the rain out, we take certain precautions (safety straps) because we don't expect the ground to suddenly become mud and break our fall. — macrosoft
I'd say that it's this concrete worldly context that mostly informs notions of objectivity. If we imagine the table made of particles/waves, we still vaguely imagine a table-shape. If we 'know better' or think about it more, we can abstract away not only this shape but even our mathematics and waves and particles as indeed just another layer of human significance 'projected' on 'something' --albeit problematically as we abstract away everything intelligible. — macrosoft
It occurs to me that the thing-in-itself is a kind of direction. Remove the 'subject' as much as possible, etc., starting with the sensual and proceeding to the intellectual. Trying to go all the way leads to absurdities. Does isolating a pure subject in the same way lead to absurdity? — macrosoft
As Derrida might have put it, the desire for pure presence is the desire for death. — StreetlightX
There is no strictly axiom for the point. A line composed of infinite lines is still one line. It is similar not the same to a set containing infinite numbers, an aleph number, or Cantors work in multiple infinities. — eodnhoj7
Show me your source considering this, according to you is a universal axiom, other wise you are pushing your own theory (which is fine) but does not hold according to its own logic.
Provide a source. — eodnhoj7
Therefore we clearly believe that we can have influence over what happens in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such object as "the table" anymore, there is just this or that description of what is going on, and we choose the one we want. Therefore we view nature as being whatever we want it to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
Clearly, there are two distinct directions, from two distinct starting points. Each one gets enveloped in problems sending one frustrated toward the other way. But the real problem is in those starting points themselves, the subject and the object, they do not produce sound premises, so they must be dismissed altogether for something different. — Metaphysician Undercover
There have been interesting attempts to claim incarnation from a materialist perspective - Zizek and Virno come to mind - but I generally find the whole theological matrix to be compromised beyond repair. — StreetlightX
e. If the thesis of irreducible mediality is right, any such attempt at 'separation' would be detrimental, and not conducive to, well, anything whatsoever. As Derrida might have put it, the desire for pure presence is the desire for death. — StreetlightX
I suspect that some 'Christian' thinkers were already articulating contemporary insights within the concepts and pictures available to them. — macrosoft
Here is a mathematical proof that one number is equal to an infinite series of numbers: — eodnhoj7
2) A person can be composed of a multitude of persons in reference to one person being various persons given a length of time defining that person.
A person may be one person around another person and be a different person in presence of another, with one common person connecting these various identities. Your argument is fail two take into account two distinct phenomena can exist at the same time in different respects. — eodnhoj7
A. P is defined by not P. — eodnhoj7
The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. The problem, as axioms, is that they are subject to a multitude of fallacies: authority, bandwagon, no true scotsman (pseudo fallacy for some), straw man (the axioms form a position not previously held), red herring (each axiom diverts to another axiom), etc.
The axioms are determined as true because of the arguments, as strucutures, which stem from them. These argument/structures, in turn are justified according to there symmetry with symmetry being the replication of certain qualities/quantities that show a common bond. — eodnhoj7
4)All straight lines are Pi — eodnhoj7
Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. — eodnhoj7
5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. — eodnhoj7
6) The line as a quantum angle — eodnhoj7
So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) — eodnhoj7
However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. — eodnhoj7
The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points. — eodnhoj7
Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line. — eodnhoj7
The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. — eodnhoj7
3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi. — eodnhoj7
4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well. — eodnhoj7
5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. — eodnhoj7
Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.
f(x)= 3.14159→(x→∞)
............f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞)
.........................f(x)=... — eodnhoj7
4. The radius is half of the diameter.
5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle. — eodnhoj7
As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line — eodnhoj7
Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length. — eodnhoj7
hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length. — eodnhoj7
So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite. — eodnhoj7
Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length. — eodnhoj7
etc, etcAll lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves. — eodnhoj7
No, P is not defined by not P. That's not a definition, as a definition gives meaning to P, saying what P signifies. If this were a definition, it would leave P completely without meaning, and that's not what a definition does, it gives meaning. Therefore P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, P is not defined by not P. That's not a definition, as a definition gives meaning to P, saying what P signifies. If this were a definition, it would leave P completely without meaning, and that's not what a definition does, it gives meaning. Therefore P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover
The laws of logic are subject to equivocation. — eodnhoj7
So in regards to your statement "Equal" does not mean "is", you are performing sophistry which does not match up with the evidence with the evidence being the common perspectives of the community, which in itself leads to further fallacies. Evidence itself falls under certain fallacies in these respects. — eodnhoj7
The Laws of Logic where written and developed by Aristotle. As such we used them based off of a fallacy of authority, as well as bandwagon, considering these laws do not work in modern logic due to there inability to deal with time in a proper manner. — eodnhoj7
So The law of Non-Contradiction is not defined by the Law of Identity, and the Law of Identity is not defined by the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Non-Contradiction does not exist through the Law of Identity and defines it? Each law does not define the other? — eodnhoj7
P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.