No worries, goodnight.

True, but there is a way to bridge the gap somewhat, and that is by understanding the subjective nature of words themselves. I fairly recently fully resolved the liar's paradox by explaining how words are actually mirrors, as they reflect the subjective nature of our own perspectives.
Here is a link to that if you're interested: https://medium.com/@echogem222b/the-liars-paradox-words-as-mirrors-of-understanding-8e38fbc71789

Also, I've figured out a way that we can all have a more unified perspective, our

internal dictionary and modality ratios — punos

as you put it. There is a post I made about this, but it requires reading my solution to the liar's paradox first, but that post can be read here: https://medium.com/@echogem222b/actions-speak-more-clearly-than-words-cbb84de42422

But if you're not interested in reading either of those posts, it's fine, just thought you might be.

I think what this issue of non-understanding really boils down to is people not truly understanding their perception of nothing. Nothing by definition prevents us from understanding it as being anything, but objective time, when looked at from the right perspective, isn't actually nothing, but a useable concept. However, it is nothing regarding it being useful like subjective time is due to our current limitations in understanding it as directly as we do for subjective time.

I've gone into the direction of understanding all kinds of things which many assume is just nothing, but actually aren't when you look at them from the right perspective. They're kind of like hidden gems in philosophy, which is why they've been left unnoticed for so long.

Yes, this is exactly what everyone ought to be doing, but instead, it's just assuming certain things are true because the majority of people seem to agree, thus, by agreeing with the majority of people, you can save time and effort, and might be correct. I mean, I do this sometimes, but I'm not going to disagree with someone making a point when I don't actually know if they're wrong or not, I would instead ask them questions or just not say anything.

You probably understand more science than I do, but at the very least, we both agree about objective time, which is great, that I'm not the only one who realized this.

It should IMO be handled differently in logic than a normal statement as it has an in-built truth value. — Devans99

No, it doesn't have an in-built truth value, it's actually an ordinary statement, in a position where it has the illusion of seeming to be more than it really is. Words are like mirrors, they don't contain meaning, but they reflect it, the true source of meaning existing elsewhere. Take for example, "The sky is blue", this meaning can be found from a person's subjective experience of the sky being blue, not in the statement or words.

In the case of the liar's paradox, "This statement is false", the meaning can be found from a person's subjective experience of reading that statement, not in the statement or words itself. The illusion comes into play when we think that the statement actually contains meaning more than our subjective understanding. This causes us to see words and the statement not as mirrors, but as windows (in the sense of how if you don't know a mirror is a mirror, you might think it's a window showing another person who looks just like you). But this creates an issue because they are mirrors,

Normally when you read a statement, it reflects outwards to some type of subjective meaning, but when it reflects inwards, the only thing it shows a reflection of is another mirror (or a collection of mirrors, I guess you could say). When mirrors face mirrors, what happens? It creates an illusion of infinity if there's enough light, and in the case of the liar's paradox, the light would be our own thoughts, and the image in between the mirrors would be the ordinary statement value, thus creating an illusion of infinity, of "this statement is false" being more than a normal statement (in other words, it's all about positioning the "mirrors" that creates this paradox.

I made a post about this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15424/the-liars-paradox-solution-words-as-mirrors-of-understanding-redo-but-full-solution

I don't know what to tell you then, I've explained this as clearly as I can.

The liars statement is a grammatically correct proposition with a very clear meaning. Our difficulties have nothing to do with problem with our interpretation of language. You and I both know what it means, but we can't figure out how it fits into our system of classification of truth and falsehood. — T Clark

No, I understand how it fits into our system of classification of truth and falsehood just fine since my solution provides that answer. Really think about how words are mirrors from my post, how they're just symbols we decided to represent the meaning that they do... If you have done this, I believe you should understand just fine that the statement, "The sky is blue" reflects the meaning of the blue sky, it would be like a person pointing up at the sky and saying the word blue, which would be like them then pointing to another blue colored thing. And then a statement is like someone pointing to a collection of words typed out on a screen or written out on a piece of paper, not the words themselves, but their subjective perspective of it they want us to understand, so that we will use words arranged a certain way for statements in the future.

So when we see the statement, "The sky is blue" we then remember an image of the blue sky, because that's what that stament, what those arrangement of words reflect. But what happens when we see the statement, "This statement is false"? We understand that the reflection does not reflect an outward meaning, but an inward one, but the only thing inward is mirrors. This then causes the reflection to reflect the reflection, which then causes that reflection to reflect the reflection, etc. The same thing occurs with real mirrors when you face them at each other with enough light, it creates an illusion of infinity. In other words, the liar paradox creates an illusion of infinity, but not with light, but our own thoughts.

When you think of a hole, there are two different values, the empty space (which is a positive value when you want to know how much space you have available), and the ground surrounding the empty space (which is a positive value when you want to know how much dirt you have available). But the empty space and the ground are not both positive values at the same time.

In math, numbers can have words attached to them. Like this:
1 orange + 1 orange= 1 oranges, not 1 orange + 1 apple= 2 fruit. This is because if you were wanting to find out how many fruit you have, you would do it like this: 1 fruit + 1 fruit= 2 fruit. Because you could also do it like this 1A+1A=2A.

So when you're trying to find out how much empty space you have, in that moment, you are not looking for how much dirt you have in a given space, and during that time, the dirt is a non-value, in other words, 0 space. This is because you do not understand how the dirt would be space, it is nothing to you in that sense.

In a math problem when you want to try and find how much dirt you have as well as how much space, you could do that, but the dirt and the space would not ever merge in values because you can't add dirt and space together and get just dirt or just space, they will always remain separate. So when you see the value of the hole as being the dirt and the space, you are seeing the equivalent of 2 different things in one location, not 1 thing.

A computer is not just 1 thing either, it's a collection of things that have 1 purpose, to function as a computer, but that's a function, a computer is not truly a single object, it's a function that occurs when many small parts exist together in a certain way.

If you want to summarize what a computer or a hole is that's fine, but you need to remember that they are not truly 1 thing.

It would be a positive number, which is why I didn't say - A, just A, which in math equals +A. If A were 0 calling it "A" wouldn't have a point since 0 is a known number. However, since the dirt removed from the hole is +1, the ground is at least +1 just to surround the hole, though likely a lot more.

If the ground is unknown it would be X or A, or any other variable. I'll say A.

The ground is A
The hole is 0
the dirt removed is +1

A-1=A-1 but then if you add 1 back to A, it would then just be A, not zero.

No, paradoxes can be resolved, but understanding nothing is impossible. Paradoxes are not nothing, nothing is just non-understanding, so if a paradox existed in nothing (somehow) we wouldn't even have awareness of it.

No worries.

You're misunderstanding how values work. using your own math:

ground = 0 (why zero, makes no sense)
hole = -1 (if the hole is -1, then it would take +2 to become 1, not just +1)
excavated dirt = +1 (not enough to fill the hole then, which doesn't make sense since removing this value caused the hole to be)

If you take away dirt and create a hole, that dirt taken away has the positive value of being dirt (so +1), but the hole left behind is not dirt, so it's equal to 0. The ground around the hole (if dirt) is also a positive value, that had more value when the hole had not yet been created, by how much, I don't know.

So to fill the hole, you would just need +1.

Let's say that the ground had the value of 75 mounds of dirt before any dirt was removed from it, but when the hole was made due to dirt being removed, the ground lost a value of 1, hence becoming 74.

I'm not sure since I don't know every philosophical hypotheses there are.

Yes, that is the paradox in a nutshell (if I'm understanding you correctly), when you keep things vague and generalize what a hole is, it's a paradox, but when you get specific and realize there are two types of holes, you realize the paradox resolves itself.

The value in understanding this "paradox" is to better understand what the word "nothing" means since many people think that nothing means something which can be understood, something that other things cannot logically come from, when in reality, it's just complete non-understanding.

Take for example this phrase, "Nothing is greater than infinity" if you think you understand nothing as I just explained, you would think that infinity is all that there is at the most, when in reality, if something above infinity exists, we wouldn't be able to understand what that is. But because it's a possibility something greater than infinity exists actually is enough to prove something greater than infinity does exist, it's just not something we can understand, because if infinity were all that there is at the most, we would not say that nothing is greater than infinity, we would instead say something like, "infinity is the most there is" without saying anything else. So the fact something greater than infinity could exist is enough to understand that something greater than infinity does exist.

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand.

Thank you for being honest about it.

Read the whole thing, but it did not counter my post any. Unless of course you didn't read my whole post and just assumed I said things I didn't, misunderstanding the context, and using the strawperson argument.

Though it's true that ignoring them is what I'd normally do most of the time, I can only ignore them because I'm in a position of a certain amount of power. Imagine being in a situation where you need to convince the other person they are using a straw person argument by showing them it creates a paradox, or you'll be executed.

That's an extreme example, but my point is that everyone has a certain degree of influence in the world, and by always ignoring the problem, it could come back to bite you later.

If something does not make sense to you, then it doesn't make sense for you to conclude that it actually does make sense, and that's why you think it's wrong.

Non-understanding does not equal understanding. Therefore, if someone says something which should leave you clueless as to how you should respond because of how little sense it makes, then saying they're wrong makes zero sense.

How amusing, using the straw person argument to reject my post as valid.

Thank you for the positive response!

The word strawman is an outdated term because it expresses gender discrimination, but don't just take my word for it, places of education are already using strawperson instead: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/straw-person.html

I'm saying that if you think every person (B-H) is actually being reasonable, that there is no fallacy being used, then it's a paradox. But if you understand the fallacy, then there is no paradox.

If you think there is no straw person argument, it's a paradox. In other words, those that think they're not using straw person arguments but actually are would see this as a paradox.

Yes in regard to all of Flawlessism remaining as all of Flawlessism, but this post is not dependent on that aspect of Flawlessism. As I explained before, you're not understanding the context correctly. Look, you don't have to respond to this post. Don't know what Flawlessism is? Fine, don't comment pretending you know what you're talking about.

Wow, it's actually rare that I find someone who agrees with me about anything.

That was a vague description of Flawlessism, meant as a short introduction, not enough to understand Flawlessism in regard to the post in this thread.

You can argue however you want, but if you don't understand the correct context, all you're doing is using the straw person argument. In other words, wasting my time.

Ah, I see, you wish to keep things vague, but what you're doing is just a straw person argument. If you don't want to bother to understand how what I'm saying is true, fine, but why comment?

No, there's still another possibility you haven't thought of yet, which is ???. In other words, a possibility we can't understand at all.

There is no need to resort to quantum mechanics to understand basic English. Anyone who thinks that holes don't exist should be dropped down a mineshaft until they realize and admit their mistake. — unenlightened

You're talking about a specific hole in this instance when there are two different types of holes:

Non-value hole= not being matter/dirt/etc. and not understanding how it could be any of those things.

Positive value hole = being available space and understanding why

To make it simpler, let's call a non-value hole a NV hole, and a positive value hole a PV hole.

NV holes and PV holes are both holes, but that's just like saying that squares and circles are both shapes, they're not the same thing, but they have similarities. In both types of holes, there is a non-understanding which exists, in NV holes it's the hole itself, and in PV holes it's the matter around the hole which can't be understood at the exact same time you're understanding the space in the hole.

In other words, if say you had 2 holes, one being a NV hole and another being a PV hole that were both circular shaped, the edges of the holes would be the same shape. But the NV hole would be just slightly larger in size than the PV hole because the measurements you would make in the NV hole would be within the dirt itself (or whatever matter the material is), but the PV hole would be measured within the empty space.

Now since I've defined what I'm talking about this much do you finally get it?

An analogy would be struggling to find an empty space in a crowded parking lot. Driving around, looking for a spot and finally finding one that's empty. That would be something because it's a PV hole.

It depends on what your beliefs are. Reality doesn't have to make sense, we just want it to. For all we know, tomorrow logic could stop making sense, it's our subjective opinion that it won't. But the way I understand reality to be is that this world is real, it actually affects us. In other words, a person can believe just about anything, but the moment it starts hurting them to maintain those beliefs is when they will be motivated to change them, and when it hurts to an extreme degree, they will have no choice but to change them or die. For those that choose death, well, they stop causing the rest of us problems. But this is not myself saying that death is the answer, I am simply saying that those who are hyperfixated on being wrong in their beliefs will cause their own beliefs to destroy themselves because they're out of sync with reality, preventing them from "seeing" where the walls are in life. Bang your head on enough "walls" and you destroy yourself from stress or other things.

But for those who can still be reasoned with, you must understand your system of reasoning and their system of reasoning, and figure out where you both have common ground, then either realize the direction they went in after that was correct (because you're wrong) or realize that the direction that you went into is correct (because they were wrong), then you explain to them how you understand why they made the mistake of going into the direction that they did, and explain why your method is actually in sync with reality.

Reality is our common ground, but when you don't know what is reality and what isn't, it makes you prone to delusion. Say I said in a box there are 3 oranges because I could smell the scent of oranges from within the box, and estimated the weight to be 3 oranges, as well as estimated there to be 3 oranges because of how shaking the box would seem to cause the impact of 3 oranges, but in reality there were only 2 oranges. My estimated guess would be a delusion, because it was out of sync with the way reality actually is. It would be even more of a delusion if after the box was opened and revealed to be 2 oranges, if I still thought there were 3 oranges.

Edit:
A reason why we want reality to make sense is because it lets us think everything we've learned so far matters, that we've accomplished something, and that we can accomplish more. As for why those accomplishments matter to us is because we believe that suffering and enjoyment are real, so it allows us to have hope that we can enjoy life more through understanding.

It's truly amazing how many of you don't read the whole post before commenting, only skim reading it at best.

This could only be justified by changing “nothing creating everything” to nothing to us creating everything. Otherwise, there is something that creates us but nothing creating everything, a blatant contradiction.

Or so it seems….. — Mww

Yes, "seems" is correct, the issue here is that you clearly don't know anything about the religion Flawlessism which is what my post was about, meaning you misunderstood the context of the argument. In other words, you used the straw person argument.

This is a thread about the religion Flawlessism. If you actually knew that religion you would know that your argument has no basis because of what I'm referencing to. If you don't know what Flawlessism is then don't comment.

Life does make sense to us, provided we don't ask incoherent questions. Of life didn't make sense we could not survive. We speak from present experience, not from barely imaginable possibilities. — Janus

Life does make sense to us provided we don't ask incoherent questions... That's like saying, fairies are real until you start asking questions. You think incoherent questions invalidate your reasoning if you were to take them seriously, but the fact you can do that at all already invalidates your reasoning.

If life did not make sense we could not survive? Yeah, that's why I believe that life makes sense, but I still believe it, and yet you're acting like if you did what I'm doing now, you'd go crazy... yet I'm doing it just fine and not going crazy at all.

That is merely a vaguely imaginable scenario, not a serious consideration. — Janus

It being even vaguely imaginable already invalidates your reasoning. If you truly knew things, that should be impossible.

+++

It is your subjective opinion that things are like that which you are using to say I'm wrong. But if I decided to use your reasoning, I could just say that you're wrong because what you're saying doesn't make sense to me given the severe lack of depth your counter argument has.

When someone says they know that apples taste good, but someone else says they only believe apples taste good, the fact that someone can have a belief of something which should be known as true, should already be a strong indicator that you can't know such things.

That was myself explaining the paradox, in other words, that was not the solution. Had you read the solution section, you would have understood that.

Since you're so certain of yourself, you can't be reasoned with until you experience for yourself the error in your reasoning which can't be done through words. However, given that you think I'm saying that nothing can have existence means that you didn't actually fully read my post, you likely skim read it, as the majority of people I come across seem to always do. Which just adds to the likelihood that you are wrong in your reaction to my post. But I'm sure to you, you're not going to care, and you're going to continue to think my post isn't worth your time given how headstrong you came into this discussion, which is quite sad to me.

Oh? So you're making the claim that we can know things without belief? In that case, can you tell me why life has to make sense to us? Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, which I consider to be a belief. Can you tell me why it's not a belief?

Because tomorrow, for all we know life could suddenly stop making sense, logic that we once thought we understood so well could suddenly change, causing us to not understand how to make reasonable arguments anymore. We assume that it doesn't because of belief, because if we didn't use belief then we would know, but we can't do that because we are dependent on our ability to reason, not our ability to know. To truly know something is to not need to use reasoning because you simply understand exactly how things are in regard to what you know.

Once you have a belief about something, you can have knowledge about it then after the belief because you're using the belief as a foundation for your knowledge, For example, once you believe that knowledge exists, the knowledge you gain then after that you don't need to believe you have once again since your foundational belief already takes care of that.