My personal worldview is ultimately Holistic and Monistic. — Gnomon
But when we begin to "describe" the world, in language or math, it is necessary to make "distinctions". — Gnomon
In a certain sense, I think the "entire context" matters for fully defining constituent "parts" role in any universe, and this might preclude things' being "building blocks" at all in the normal sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus
You can do possible things. You cannot do impossible things.
You cannot point to something that is outside the universe.
You are part of the universe. Your thoughts are part of the universe. Language is part of the universe.
You cannot reference not-universe in any way. It is flat out, unequivocally, impossible. — Treatid
Everything humans have achieved is what is possible. Aligning our expectations with reality will be orders of magnitude more productive than the alternative. — Treatid
The concept of "outside the universe" is null. It doesn't mean anything.
Your concept of "outside the universe" is part of the universe. It is inside the universe. — Treatid
Language and mathematics don't have a secret backdoor access to an objective viewpoint independent of the universe. — Treatid
Freedom is built into the real, and the past doesn’t determine the future, it only provides constraints and affordances. — Joshs
Reality is a moving target. Knowledge is praxis, a way of changing how we interact with our world in ways that are useful to us. The changes we make in our interactions with the world feed back into our understanding to further change our knowledge. — Joshs
There is no limit to the variety of ways we can scientifically construe our world — Joshs
Thanks to the unidirectional arrow of time, the universe is continually outside itself, continually overcoming its former states. — Joshs
My position is formally an internalist epistemology. I'm a Peircean pragmatist. So problem dealt with. — apokrisis
But all definitions within a system are circular. — Treatid
There is no space in which particles move. Like frames of a film, a series of interactions can give the impression of continuous movement in space. — Treatid
Incorrect. — apokrisis
and now stand as the metaphysical foundation for our scientific descriptions of nature. — apokrisis
OK if the mode of time is not Presentism but Eternalism; however, we don't yet know the mode of time. If Presentism, the 'particles' roll along their fields, like a kink in a rope moves. — PoeticUniverse
The relationship is much the same as that between Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity. There is no iterative path from Newtonian Mechanics to General Relativity. General Relativity does not make sense given the assumptions of Newtonian Mechanics. — Treatid
You can't have logic and dichotomies at the same time.
A relational universe is incompatible with an objective universe.
It isn't possible to comprehend one in terms of the other. — Treatid
Except, of course, it isn't possible to specify an initial set of premises in a fixed and unambiguous fashion. Before we can wonder if the premise is static we have to deal with never knowing exactly what the premises are in the first place. — Treatid
As a kicker we can round off with General Relativity, wherein the notion of objective truth can get bent. — Treatid
A consistent system cannot illustrate what a contradiction is. — Treatid
Everything that is possible within the universe (including languages) is possible. Language works with the same mechanism as the rest of the universe. Just like the universe, everything that is possible is possible. — Treatid
However, your comment regarding the foundation of science makes me think your pragmatism is superficial. That you are holding onto old assumptions despite the evidence. — Treatid
Peircean logic and Systems Science speak to an internalist view of nature in which "objectivity" is what a community of inquirers hopes to arrive at in the limit. — apokrisis
Small is not Large — Treatid
Circular definitions are an artefact of trying to define Object A. — Treatid
The world is exactly what it looks like. And it looks like relationships. It does not look like objects. — Treatid
The way out of circularity is hierarchy. — apokrisis
But even at the level of the logic, we have an upgrade available that makes much sense of what ought to be seen. — apokrisis
The world looks exactly like how you expect it to look – that is normal psychology. — apokrisis
i.e. a truth claim such as ...The notion of objective (fixed) truth should be dead and buried millennia ago. — Treatid
therefore "should be dead and buried" as well, which is self-refuting and so there's no need forThe universe is an iterated network of relationships ... This is the linchpin observation. — Treatid
:confused:If you can find an exception - my position collapse(s). — Treatid
Pardon my intrusion — 180 Proof
therefore "should be dead and buried" as well, which is self-refuting and so there's no need for — 180 Proof
Anything with extension, that is, the sort of things that populate our universe, are infinitely divisible — NotAristotle
Also, I am confused by some of the claims contending that everything is "part of" the universe. In a loose sense, this is true. But there is not some "thing" that is "the universe." And in that sense, the universe does not have any "parts" in the same way that a solar system does not have parts. Maybe the parts are structurally related, but there is not some existent "thing" there, it's more of a convention that helps us organize the world, thought, speech, writing. This is not true of everything. Living things, at least, are differentiate wholes. — NotAristotle
Holism:
Holism is the idea that systems and their properties should be analyzed as wholes, not just as collections of parts. In this view, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Interconnectedness:
Everything in the universe is interconnected. The nature and existence of individual entities cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be seen in relation to the larger whole.
Unity of Being:
Reality is fundamentally one unified whole. Differences and distinctions within this whole are secondary to the underlying unity. — ChatGpt
How do you know this if it is only "subjective"?You exist. This is self-evident to you. — Treatid
Firstly, "proof" only pertains to logic and mathematics, not matters of fact.However, you cannot prove your existence to me beyond all possible doubt ...
Again, how do you know my so-called "self-evident ... subjective truth"?So - "your existence is self evident" is subjectively true. Your existence is evident to you.
e.g. Such as this merely "subjective" statement. :roll:[ ... ] isn't an objective truth. This applies to every concept you can imagine. It is impossible to objectively prove anything.
However, you cannot prove your existence to me beyond all possible doubt ...
Firstly, "proof" only pertains to logic and mathematics, not matters of fact. — 180 Proof
Secondly, "beyond all possible doubt" is neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition for any claim to have a(n objective) truth-value. — 180 Proof
Thirdly, whether or not you/we believe "beyond all possible doubt" any X exists is neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition that that X exists. — 180 Proof
Lastly, given that you/we/I lack compelling, reasonable grounds to doubt any X exists, believing that that X exists is reasonable until such grounds for doubt are evident. — 180 Proof
Principle of explosion — 180 Proof
Technically: it is impossible to define axiomatic mathematics and first order logic. We haven't actually proved they don't exist - just that we cannot say anything meaningful about them. — Treatid
As such, for any given set of axioms we need a set of axioms that uniquely defines how to interpret that set of axioms. — Treatid
For all practical purposes, we can treat them as if they don't exist. The distinction between "can't be described" and "don't exist" is moot. — Treatid
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.