You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn: — 180 Proof

What I've Learned

The song advises us, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."

The gift of attention holds a high rank. It's good to take in distinguishing details that mark individuality. Each person is endlessly specific. The dizzy array of personal features hits with the excitement of centrifugal adventure.

Noticing people, and engaging with them socially, beyond concerns about the pecking order, kicks against the barrenness of solitude.

I am not evading anything here, I'm replying to what I think you're asking, by giving you answers that approximate what happens in my experience, that and trying to be as clear as I am capable of being, is all I can do in these conversations. — Manuel

I see you are a diplomatic person who shows consideration for others.

As I go forward, let me check my language lest it become rife with combative ambition.

What I've Learned

If inquiry doesn't include signature procedures including math models, research, testing of tangibles, compiling of data & analysis, it may not be science proper. Orthodox science is specific to the degree it has limitations of application.

A spectrum of human experiences are resistant to scientific investigation and sensible persons, including scientists, have no problem with that.

One shouldn't be a geeky extremist.

We enter into semantic territory here. — Manuel

Do we really?

I suspect you invoke "semantics" here in order to lay a foundation for evasion.

You can use the word science, to mean "good" or "useful", as in "that person has his cooking down to a science" or "that politician has his negotiation tactics down to a science", but I don't take these claims to be theoretical. — Manuel

In your interpretation of the above examples, "good" or "useful" are not sufficiently specific, and I think you know that. Your examples are a way of saying someone achieves their goals by following a process or set of rules in calculations or other problem-solving operations. The emphasis is upon logical, focused efficiency in getting to the goal. This definition is much closer to the scientific method, and thus the examples are not loosey-goosey applications of what "science" denotes. Moreover, your examples are clearly about applied science, not theoretical science, so, of course, such claims are not theoretical, thus denying such fails to add additional distance between the examples & science.

You give no reactions to two important words I used. "Claims," formally speaking = proposition. "Inquiry," formally speaking = experimentation. The formal versions of the two words, as you know, are firmly rooted within science. My hunch is that you wish to avoid committing to a position that says humans conduct inquiries culminating in claims that are emphatically non-scientific.

I make the above conjecture in relation to

I do think there are things which science cannot tell us much about, namely, international relations and inter-personal relations (among other topics), they are simply too complex — Manuel

in order to argue that international relations and inter-personal relations et al are, as you know, studied with methods not easily characterized as non-scientific.

Physics works so well, in part because it deals with the simplest structures we can discover. — Manuel

If you think elementary particles & their interrelationships are simple, it must be the case you've merely glanced at studies of these phenomena.

I believe you are using "naturalism" in a sense that excludes things like "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on. I don't think so. — Manuel

By assuming humans are direct products of the natural world, along the lines of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution... — ucarr

I don't see how you arrive at your above interpretation from my claim directly below it.

The gist of my current inquiry into your understandings about the limits of science re: understanding the world into which we humans are born i.e. our natural, earthly world, takes focus upon what I suppose to be a necessary break in the connection of human to natural, earthly world.

I've been supposing this gap between the two explains the scientific limitations you describe.

My underlying premise is that human, as a product of natural earth, has no gap separating it from natural earth, unless human, in addition to natural earth, has another source for its identity.

I say this to make clear I assume all attributes of human identity (including "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on) have their source in nature.

My other underlying premise is that science is the only judge of truth.

I don't think there is an unbridgeable gap between human identity and the natural world. — Manuel

Are you claiming science is one type of inquiry amongst a multiplicity of types of inquiry?

Do you believe some humans, via inquiry, know things about themselves & the world that cannot be examined & verified by science?

Do you believe there are types or sets of claims that are non-scientific?

Do you believe there exist humans who make non-scientific claims about themselves and the world, and, in so doing, make claims that possess truth derived from inquiries correctly vetted & verified non-scientifically?

If your answer to the above is "yes," then I believe it's a radical claim that draws a boundary around the scope of science WRT searching out & discovering the truth about our natural, earthly world.

In this thread, do you propound a premise that claims something like saying “the natural world contains parts inscrutable to science”?

Furthermore, is it your view that science is a distinctly human contrivance involving more than simple observation & imitation of natural processes?

I ask these questions because, if so, then there is an unbridgeable gap or break between human identity & the natural world.

By assuming humans are direct products of the natural world, along the lines of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, I don’t see how this unbridgeable gap could exist, unless humans, in your ontology, are NOT entirely products of the natural world.

If it is your view that human is only partly derived from the natural world, then explaining the unbridgeable gap, as opposed to merely declaring it, requires an elaboration of that human source of identity that is not a part of the natural world.

Is it your belief that human identity is a combination of natural and not-natural parts?

I think there is an unfortunate trend to associate the word "nature" and "naturalism" to mean whatever science says there is. — Manuel

When I write "natural world," I'm not referring to science & what it claims. I'm referring to earth as humans find it upon the awakening of their consciousness. Earth, our home, as I understand it, is a given. As such, it is, axiomatically, what is there to be perceived, experienced and, if possible, known.

Science, as I understand it, consists of a highly organized collection of procedures for perceiving what is given i.e. the natural world.

...there is clearly more to the world than what science says there is (art, morals, politics, human relations, etc.) — Manuel

I don't believe science excludes art, morals, politics, human relations, etc. from its domain. Consider, for examples, ethics_morality studies in philosophy; political science; psychology, anthropology.

I've never heard any scientist attempt to exclude the above from the domain of the natural world.

Do you believe humans to be entirely of the natural world (as I've described it here)?

If you do, then you don't believe humans have attributes that don't intersect with the natural world out of which they are created.

It's true that some humans embrace beliefs inscrutable to science (material/spiritual duality), but that's a very different statement from saying parts of human nature and parts of the natural world do not coincide.

The ability for a thing to move is afforded by Time itself. — punos

Three claims:

The motion of a material object is associated with a positive interval of time.

A positive interval of time supports duration.

When a material object moves across a positive interval of time, it examples duration, and thus you have dimension.

Conclusion:

Time, via duration, supports dimensional expansion WRT space, time, motion.

Questions:

Can time exist apart from the physics of material objects in motion?

If we imagine that it can, does the passing of time in isolation consume energy?

If it doesn't, does it follow that the inertial force attached to material objects is caused by time, a non-energy phenomenon?

Is time an independent, physical phenomenon, or is it a cognitive construct of the perceiving, human mind?

If it is the latter, then, as such, is it an emergent property of material objects?

Four Claims:

Time, within the perceiving human mind, conceptualizes duration that, in turn, organizes material objects in motion as dimensional expansions.

Energy = the ability to move

Energy+motion+duration (perceived time) = the dimensional expansion of our 3D environment

Our physical ontology is rooted in the triumvirate of energy_animation_duration

Do you think their interrelationship important enough to work out a detailed characterization? — ucarr

When possible, the way we are happens to coincide with some aspects of the way the world is, when these interact, we have a possible science. If not, we don't. — Manuel

I think your above response gives a substantial & thought-provoking answer to my question.

If there exist human attributes parallel to the natural world, then, to some extent, humans are not entirely of the natural world, and thus science of the natural world cannot reveal & explain those parts of human. Moreover, human composition is only partly natural. As to the other part, is it super-natural?

Did you intend to imply the above?

If there are parts of the world fundamentally unlike human, then human science faces parts of the natural world it cannot understand.

The two above disjunctions are rooted in the notion that human science can understand variance by degree, but not by fundamental category. I can understand, scientifically, a frog. Like me, it's a protein-based, water-dependent sentient. I cannot understand, scientifically, a conjectured, immaterial spirit.

Note - Human can embrace immaterial spirit, but that entails non-scientific acceptance of a body/spirit duality.

Of what does the self consist?. — ucarr

That's what I've been asking you, since you're the one who brought it up.

I'm saying what the self can't possibly be. A triangle cannot be a circle. Identity is something which, by definition, has to be stable, permanent, or it isn't identity.. — baker

Self – The enduring, discernibly consistent POV of a sentient being. — ucarr

Is the distinction to the effect that manifest ontology = via the senses and scientific ontology = via reasoned understanding based upon experimentation?
— ucarr

No. Although it is tempting to put forth such distinctions, as it looks neat and saves us from doing more work, I don't think it holds up. — Manuel

Sellars claims that the scientific image of man is not able to encompass or comprehend the manifest image but that both are equally valid ways of knowing about man. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I see that your two ontologies, as inspired by Sellars, stand in a somewhat parallel relationship to each other. Do you think their interrelationship important enough to work out a detailed characterization? As Sellars says, scientific imagery comes after manifest imagery, thereby suggesting a conceivably important relationship.

Depends on what you mean by skepticism in terms of scope and depth. A healthy does of skepticism is good, but figuring out what "healthy" amounts to is not easy. — Manuel

Skepticism, as I'm using it here, means withholding judgment on principle until rational examination (and possible experimentation) are conducted. Accordingly, examination evaluates skepticism just as it evaluates truth claims.

My own view, which I've been working out is to use Sellar's distinction between the "manifest image" and the "scientific image" as a good provisional distinction, or at least a useful heuristic.

I'd say I have a manifest ontology which includes "everything" and a scientific ontology which tends to be agnostic. What there is in the mind-independent world may well be what physics says there is, but physics is incomplete and is subject to revisions that may make any previous ontology obsolete.

The reason for including a "manifest ontology" is because I think our common-sense world is worth talking about, I want to talk about kings and ships and gods and everything else. Otherwise we would have very little to say. — Manuel

Is the distinction to the effect that manifest ontology = via the senses and scientific ontology = via reasoned understanding based upon experimentation?

Is it true that when you make your cognitive journeys, you lead with skepticism?

If you are skeptical to some degree, do you ever apply it to your manifest ontology?

This question attempts to examine the possible existence of crosstalk between your two sets of ontology. If it exists, then perhaps your cognitive journeys feature an oscillation between the two sets:

Skepticism about what your senses detect sends you to science and, conversely, skepticism about what science detects sends you to sensory experience.

All of the above = my attempt to explain why I ask if you lead with skepticism.

Dimension = Space^2 — punos

Does motion have an elementary role within your ontology?

Do you give credence to the concept of soul? If you do, might that be a candidate for self?

Do you discover what's extant by determining what cannot be eliminated?

Do you align yourself with any position on the political spectrum ranging from radical to ultra conservative?

Of what does the self consist?

Okay. We all know people can change, however, you view self as tilting towards stability & permanence.

Is it correct to characterize you as being conservative?

Can you point out where and how I "posit real/unreal as polar opposite"? — 180 Proof

Let me repeat what I just posted.

("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

un-1 | ən |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.

When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you. — ucarr

No you're not. I wrote
... acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc. — 180 Proof

apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models — 180 Proof

The referent for your pronoun "It's" is apophatic metaphysics ∼ apophatic metaphysics does acid testing of (self-contradictory) concepts or models...

Btw, what the hell is "cataphaticism"? :sweat: — 180 Proof

As Hinduistic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Hinduisticism (a Hinduistic system of exegesis)

So Cataphatic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Cataphaticism (a Cataphatic system of exegesis)

Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary. — ucarr

A distinction (i.e. alternative) is not a "hard boundary". :roll: — 180 Proof

You're talking about the comparison of cataphatic/apophatic, whereas I'm talking about the comparison of real/unreal. Since I'm examining what cataphatic exegesis does, it's proper for me to make claims like "Cataphatic exegesis seeks to establish a hard (categorical) boundary between real/unreal."

Even so, you say,

Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete — 180 Proof

ob·so·lete | ˌäbsəˈlēt |
adjective
1 no longer produced or used; out of date: the disposal of old and obsolete machinery | the phrase was obsolete after 1625.

It's hugely pretentious to claim the comparison of useful/useless can be characterized as alternative.

Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.
— ucarr

Again, ucarr, this has nothing to do with anything I've written. — 180 Proof

("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.

un-1 | ən |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly. — ucarr

... real/unreal polarities ...

... metaphysical acid test ...

... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ... — ucarr

You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn: — 180 Proof

You say I’m monologuing with myself, thus implying my oblivion WRT key statements articulated by you. Let’s examine your claim by going down the above list.

... real/unreal polarities ... — ucarr

I asked for your take on metaphysics,


Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?[/quote]

and you obliged me by responding thus,
— ucarr

Aristotle's students / archivists coined the term "tà metà tà physikà biblía" which he never used (in his works). I do agree with his conception of philosophia prima – the categorical principles necessary for rationally interpreting the whole of nature. I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. For instance (a sketch with a link to more ... links ... sketches): — 180 Proof

Can you explain, logically, how your above bolded statement (concerned with categoricals) does NOT posit real/unreal as polar opposites?

... metaphysical acid test ... — ucarr

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132

The above link, which you gave to me, connected me to a discussion thread wherein I found the following statement by 180 Proof,

In my opinion, metaphysics is obsolete ...
— Enrique
Cataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete but not apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. It's my preferred approach for acid testing impossible (self-contradictory) concepts or models used in defeasible discursive practices such as natural sciences, historical sciences, legal theory, formal systems, etc. Scientism, however, doesn't seem a viable, or coherent, alternative to speculatively creating 'new' concepts (metaphor-paradigms) adequate to our theoretical problems or interpreting their theoretical solutions accordingly. In other words, a nail (re: science) can't hammer itself. — 180 Proof

When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.

... acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical ... — ucarr

As to the question of your characterization of apophaticism being concerned with establishing hard boundaries separating things, you, again, provide the answer.

The question of all questions is: what is?
— Xtrix
In the apophatic tradition I think this ur-question is answered, rather than merely addressed, by reformulating it 'what necessarily is not' e.g. ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.

Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you make specific responses to my arguments above because, of late, you've merely been naysaying my arguments with unsupported declarations.

At the very least, this exegesis refutes your claim I'm dialoguing with myself. Anyone who can read English can see that my critiques of your positions oftentimes quote you. They might be fallacious, but they're not self-enclosed monologues.

You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Be that as it may, I hope you see my intention is to dialogue with you, not ignore you.

If I fail utterly to understand your positions, that's a good reason for you to ignore me, however, as yet, you haven't, so for now I turn my attention to the centrality of query WRT logic & philosophy.

So far, in this thread, I've gotten Agent Smith's deflection (via paradox) and your silence.

I know query is an essential information systems operator that links all of what we can know.

I believe, with increasing confidence, all data forms are linked primevally, and query, like messenger RNA, manipulates data templates across platforms in a process that isolates a datum from data like a droplet from the ocean.

These observations sound like conventional wisdom until I declare "question links sentience to matter directly and therefore cognition, no less than matter, holds possession of an axiomatic status; as the blueness of blue, so the contemplation of thought."

Premise - axiomatic = metaphysical ∼ every dimensional matrix has an arbitrary start point, and that's metaphysics beyond the categorical, unless someone can cite a dimensional matrix without a start point, but then, such a matrix, being eternal, must needs be axiomatic, and that circles us back around to metaphysical.

I don't use "a bivalent methodology", just a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'. — 180 Proof

Non-oppositional & non-exclusionary are modifiers I apply to the real/unreal polarities at the center of your metaphysical acid test. In claiming the polarities are entangled, I argue that the modifiers mitigate the polarization of the polarities. For this reason, my argument continues, a simple real/unreal switch as acid test for what is categorically real or unreal introduces a volume of imprecision unacceptable for metaphysics, especially as you define metaphysics as the categorical.

The upshot of my argument says real/unreal are limited & soft polarities, and thus they’re not suitable as acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical, your asserted lynchpin for the metaphysical.

Note – In the instant you claim categorical, you lay the groundwork for characterization of your position as including (if not prioritizing) bivalence.

If, on the other hand, it is your wish to acknowledge existence of degrees of reality, as distinguished from the simple, bi-valent switch of real/unreal, then your apophaticism, now shaking hands with catophaticism, expands beyond categorical classification to include the grayscale of the not strictly physical-cum-not strictly real milieu of Meinong.

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? — ucarr

Not in a genuine dialogue where understanding mutually different positions is the goal. — 180 Proof

When you attack me, implying my character is self-enclosed & egotistical, you seem to be misreading yourself. “…mutually different positions…” as I understand it, means two different positions conjoined in dialogue. If this is correct, then, as you say, the work involves carefully distilling all important details on both sides of the argument. Therefore, when I say,

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. — ucarr

it should be clear I’m describing a meeting of the minds of two parties. Well, that means evaluating your terms in terms of my own terms. I don’t suppose you think I would evaluate your terms in terms of your terms. Not being you, how could I do that?

As individuals, we always bring our own terms into confrontation with the terms of others. Being selves ourselves, how can we do otherwise?

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics. If you're not going to read what I write for comprehension, ucarr, that's quite all right but let me know so I won't waste any more time answering your questions. — 180 Proof

How can you suppose I haven’t read your link when the heart & soul of my counter-narrative to your metaphysical acid test attacks (whether rightly or wrongly) the simplistic bivalence of categorical real/unreal? From the start I’ve been arguing their mitigating entanglement.

If your categorical acid test runs parallel to the polar entanglement of real/unreal (as opposed to running through it, which is what I think), then point it out to me as I’ve missed it.

Now consideration of what’s really important.

If you want to break off dialoguing with me (I don’t want to break off dialoguing with you) on moral grounds of bad character mine, that’s an emotional value that scuttles the power of the above verbiage. In that event, I will, of course, respect your privacy and leave off from further attempts to communicate with you. However, before you ring down the metal bars locking us into prison cells of alienation, I want you to cheat a little bit and answer my question,

Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?

Getting this question answered is one of the main goals of my conversation.

If we must conclude our interesting & informative (and now testy) interactions, then why not bookmark things with a categorical closure?

Thank-you!

06-13-22 Chapter 01

I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state; how a 4D object looks in 3D.

Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

In 4D space, complex time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions. Simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by complex time. Under this construction, simple time (as in our 3D experience), at a given position, flows along as always even as the non-locality of hyper-space sustains one thing as multiples occupying multiple positions simultaneously. The non-locality of hyper-space renders tessaractic reality as a type of multi-verse.

Consider two parallel boxes.

In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.

8 days ago


06-21-22 Chapter 02

Now an answer to What is a question? can be expressed with the apparent problem of paradox taken into consideration.

Premise – Question = cognitive motion.

By working through a sequence of math operations that progressively isolates the unknown in terms of the known, the process of question arrives at an answer that, all along, was embedded within the question.

I can argue that question & answer are different expressions of one unitary truth. The difference that appears to the reason is an apparent difference in the forms of ideas.

The query process draws a line of continuity between the different forms of ideas, thus linking the different forms logically. Question is thus an essential tool of information & knowledge. This, in turn, makes query indispensable to philosophy.

I can say that philosophy is question.

Premise – Question-of-question = higher order cognitive motion.

What is a complex question?

In this context, complex question doesn’t mean a question that entails a complicated, multi-part answer. A first order question can entail such an answer.

Herein, a complex question is a query that unfolds in 4D as an expansion from the paradox of question-of-question as perceived in 3D.

In the 3D view of question-of-question, there is a circularity of reasoning that posits two, contradictory claims on equal footing, thus rendering the claim undecidable as a whole.

Through the lens of question defined as a process that discovers logical continuity between differing forms of an idea, question-of-question seems to fuse together inconsistent claims into a strange & unjustifiable continuity.

This fugue state of continuity is the telltale marker of a higher dimensional object in its collapsed state as it resides at a dimensional matrix that excludes one of more of the object’s dimensions.

When the query process terminates in a paradox, the inquisitor should conclude that the object of their search possesses at least one additional dimension beyond the dimensional matrix of the query. The presence of this additional dimension presses against, as it were, the boundary of the dimensional matrix that cannot accommodate expansion of the additional dimension.
In order to remedy this fugue state of continuity, the inquisitor must expansively unfold the paradox by catapulting it upwards from reality into hyper-reality. In short, this catapult entails an upwardly dimensional expansion from 3D into 4D.

Forward Speculations – Visualization in 4D

Henceforth, my narrative tries to throw open the shutters on hyper-reality by means of speculative visualization.

Hyper-reality – a dimensional matrix that includes four spatial dimensions + time.

The conception herein, with the possible exceptions of some details, is not new.

Higher-order cognitive motion, rather than working through a sequence of math operations that progressively (sequentially) isolates the unknown in terms of the known, instead propagates such a cognitive continuity instantaneously.

Instantaneous propagation of logical continuity is the resultant of unfolding question-of-question in 4D. This description, with its claim of instant continuity, sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s because my description of 4D is herein rendered through a 3D narrative.

The instantaneity of question-of-question, although infinitely faster, resembles intuition. I can call it super-intuition.

Premise – hyper-question, or the process of hyper-query = omniscience. This is a state wherein question & answer are always one, never separated in sequential time.

If we imagine a sentient being whose natural state is 4D, as distinguished from human, whose native state, being 3D, must use abstract reasoning techniques in order to “perceive” 4D, then we understand that such 4D being knows all answers to all questions instantly.

The trick of this claim is that it presents a seemingly perplexing, all-encompassing continuity wherein question-answer are merged. Moreover, it suggests that a native 4D being always knows all. These are tricks of perplexity caused by the rendering of a native 4D being within my 3D narrative.

QM opened the door to these seemingly perplexing observations regarding elementary forces & particles. It seems to be the case that investigations into elementary physics opens additional dimensions that, rendered in 3D narratives, present wildly counter-intuitive pictures of reality.

I can argue that QM is our primer for Boundary Ontology. After all, QM, as the label says, concerns itself with navigation of discrete units of forces & particles i.e. quanta.

In the next chapter, I will explore some attributes of the multi-self phenomenon.

You rendered me an important service when you responded to my closing statement, chapter 01. A timeless universe, as implied by my original statement, and made explicit by your feedback, looks like a fatal flaw to me too.

I've addressed the issue of the timeless universe.

I need your feedback on chapter 02. If you're willing to give feedback, any flaws you can point out will, again, render me an important service.

I hope you'll say "yes." My writing needs engagement with a rigorous critic.

The chapter is only two pages long.



Are you willing to scour my closing statement for flaws with your elliptical exigesis? (I always read all of your links to supporting text.)

Chapters 01 & 02 are directly below.

I differ from Aristotleans/Thomists insofar as I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) instead of via positivity (i.e. "X is Y" ~ the real defined by positing reals) — 180 Proof

Do you claim in the above you are not propounding a method of discovery by what you conclude to be proper procedure?

If I understand correctly what is meant by thesis (even if only somewhat) i.e. a statement or theory that is put forward (herein by you exploited as a means of self-identification which, by the way, I asked of you amidst my (alleged) oblivion to who you are), then your thought-provoking response to my query, re: your metaphysics, contains an implicit argument for the above-mentioned thesis.

Do you not claim below (as an additional support to the above) that one type of methodology, apophaticism, is superior to another, cataphaticism?

because, whereas the latter makes it intractably difficult to reach a philosophical concensus, the former, IME, makes philosophical disagreement – the devil's, of course, in the details – self-contradictory. — 180 Proof

If you're willing to acknowledge having passed judgment upon two types of methodology, then proceed to explain how your thesis about which of the two is correct is not based upon the above, which, to me, reads like a premise.

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics... — 180 Proof

ap·o·pha·tic | ˌapəˈfadik |
adjective Theology

(of knowledge of God) obtained through negation. The opposite of cataphatic.

Maybe you should take another look at how apophatic is defined.

I don't deny my ever present self-interest. It's called staying alive in a dangerous world.

To you I say, "Don't jump to hasty conclusions." This especially in light of your claim to the effect that,

I've very little interest in merely exchanging monologues which I find is unproductive and arrogant. — 180 Proof

I... use...a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream' — 180 Proof

I conceive of 'categorical principles' via negation ("X is not Y" ~ the real determined by negating unreals) — 180 Proof

You're reading your own concerns, ucarr, into what i've expressed here which misreads my stated goal. — 180 Proof

Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? It's not the case that we members here have all confined ourselves to our own bubbles.

In fact, this very conversation is specifically concerned with interrelationship (certainly from my end, and, I think, also from your end).

My conclusion diverges from yours. Is it a misreading of what you've written? Let's see.

You say above you conceive of categorical principles via negation.

The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through

If you want to categorically negate something, is taking a route to that goal by way of selfsame something the best way? In parallel, let's say I want to get to heaven. Is going through hell the surefire way to arrive there? Granted, it's a surefire way to arrive at an appreciation of heaven. This is so because hell is an extreme contrast to heaven. But I'm not seeking appreciation of heaven. I'm seeking the heaven itself. Let's say a guide tells you the way to heaven is through that door over yonder that has the word "HELL" printed onto it. Would such a directive give you pause, or would you rush through the door?

I use the above to elaborate contrast ≠ independence.

One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation. — baker

As I understand you, you're claiming a, b, & c cannot make concerted attacks upon the individual's power to choose freely unless individuality is understood superficially & characterized as weak.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c.

I'm not following you. "Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics". E.g. like space and negative space are aspects of the same geometry. — 180 Proof

Your above claims are congruent with the claims that motivated them i.e. my previous claims. This shows we're surveying the same general terrain of data, but our conclusions are different.

The certainty of separation of our bivalent logic: on/off; yes/no; open/closed; negative/positive introjects some of the idealism component of metaphysics.

It's clear to me that the positivity of positive is linked to and dependent upon the negativity of negative (and vice versa) as part of a network interweave. Speaking ontically, you can't know one without the other.

So, per your statement,

"Positive" and "negative" approaches are just two branches off the trunk of "metaphysics". — 180 Proof

it's clear two branches of the same tree are not pure, categorical polarities, utterly without intersection.

Bivalent "opposites" are distinguished by contrast, however, contrast ≠ independence.

I do think you can establish & exploit logically the contrast between entangled valences.

I don't think you can use a bivalent methodology to establish the categorical certainty of one valence & the categorical impossibility of its opposing valence.

This is why QM keeps telling us one gate can be simultaneously open/closed. As the lynchpin of quantum computing, QM simultaneity, the anti-thesis of bivalence, seems to be working.

One of the shortcomings of modal logic is its role as a blindfold opaquing the limited domain of paradox.

:grin: :up:

the real determined by negating unreals — 180 Proof

This looks like the two (supposed) polarities get expressed, one in terms of the other. This is entanglement. Contrast ≠ independence. Your configuration of entanglement here implies some complexities that might undermine your goal of categorical separation. Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real. We know this because gravity, a fundamental force, entangles everything, even within the realm of a priori cognition.

Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?

Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word. — baker

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

I don't understand what you're asking. — 180 Proof

If I cannot state, without doubt, the essential nature of a thing, and yet, there is no doubt I'm looking at & contemplating the nature of an existing thing, then, it follows logically, that that thing being contemplated supports a range of speculations about what it might be.

I'm asking you to list some (or all) of the members of the range (set) of speculations about what What is a question? might be. I want you to take special care to include members (reasonably accurate WRT the apparent identity of the thing) that are non-questions.

It follows that a putative question finally undecidable as such might actually be not a question at all but, instead, a declaration, command, exclamation, expletive etc.

It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out? — baker

The guy's in love with the woman, but he thinks she had a fling with him on the rebound from her broken relationship with the father of Felice. Should he press his case for a love relationship between them? Should he respect her independence? Should he continue to protect his own self-respecting independence, rejecting his impulse to plea for her company? Who can answer these questions?

The intensity of the woman's rejection of the man's sympathy for her loss of Felice is telling. It suggests that much of what happened stemming from the one-night stand (?) that produced Felice is unresolved within the woman, including her feelings for the man.

We don't know if the woman is the type who could abort a child, but it might be the case that she bore Felice in part due to emotional attachment to her father.

This is a whirlpool of complicated emotions rubbing against each other intra-personally, inter-personally & also, the tectonic plates of emotion rubbing against those of underlying values & beliefs, again both intra & inter personally. Whew!

As per the above, I make my case, through this fictional story, to the effect that human individuals oftentimes are animated morasses of complications of complications.

As you can see from this argument, human individuality isn't simply about singularity, but also about the personal, the inter-personal, the social and even the cosmic.

By social convention, western philosophy is a punching bag for wits, with the public following suit. However, when philosophy is good, and written in the plain language of the common people, everybody listens because, underneath all of the pragmatical posturing, everybody holds interest in the big questions.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. How I, the individual, fit into the cosmos swirling around me is a lifelong journey without easy, formulaic answers.

"What is a question?" shows – one cannot say unquestionably – what a question is. — 180 Proof

The above implies What is a question? encompasses a spectrum of possible identities.

Please list some members of this spectrum, especially those members that are non-questions.

Did you read my 4D statement just above your

This is a stupid question! — Agent Smith

statement?

Nothing denotes a something without any of the properties constituting the domain within which that something is embedded. (Re: physical) — 180 Proof

I think maybe this statement contains a whiff of

A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes: — 180 Proof

as regards nothing being paradoxically contained_not contained within the domain in which nothing is (somehow) embedded sans any of the attributes denoting said embedding.

I think maybe there's a paradox associated with the conception of nothing as being in possession of a specifiable boundary (of some sort) that allows it to be embedded within another boundary.

What do you think the self consists of? — baker

For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12322/felice-by-180-proof

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself...all this is easy... — baker

Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? I ask because you say being yourself is easy.

...Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy. — baker

Let me modify the above quote.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual. For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

The second part of your statement is good because it recognizes the limitations of individuality while valuing the collective wisdom of cultures and societies.

I distinguish "nothing" from "nothingness" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/707639
... the physical (or quotidian) from the metaphysical (or wholly conceptual). — 180 Proof

So, nothing is existential whereas nothingness is categorical, and thus metaphysics is an empty but not meaningless category.

Wow! I got an information-bearing statement from 180 re: metaphysics.

Confiteur I don't know how to extricate myself from the loop formed by definition & question in re questions.

What is a question? is an impossible question - to ask it, one must know what a question is but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what a question is. This is the paradox. — Agent Smith

I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?

Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.

If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?

Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.

I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...

Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state

Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).

The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.

In contrast, in 4D space, non-sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions as simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by non-sequential time.

Consider two parallel boxes.

In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.

In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.

In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.

Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.

In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.

I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.

At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.

I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.

In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.