Art is what Aesthetics studies.
Religion is what Theology studies.
And Philosophy is what Science studies.

It is now necessary that I read more on Hegel. — MoK

Nah. You'll be fine. You're under no obligation to read Hegel, in any way, shape, or form.

Thanks for introducing Hegel to me. — MoK

I prefer Mario Bunge, but people don't like him : )

Well said!

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK


Not at all, I don't mind at all. Here you go:

Affirmation: Synthesis.
Negation: Analysis.
Negation of the Negation: Affirmation of the Affirmation.

The last one is the polemical one. ; ) — Arcane Sandwich

In other words, MoK:

Analysis of Analysis = Synthesis of Synthesis

Peirce
James
Dewey

The Holy Trinity of American Pragmatism.

Empiricism concerns phenomena. Our OP seems to think that is a matter of the perceivable v. the unperceivable. But I shall leave to you a question he so far has ducked: can there be a science of anything that is not perceived, that is not in some way or other a phenomenon observed? — tim wood

Of course there can be such a science. The science of phenomena is called phenomenology. The science of noumena is called noumenology. And the science of Reality Itself is simply called science. It includes the formal sciences (mathematics and logic), as well as the factual sciences (the natural sciences and the social sciences).

And except in areas both obscure and arcane none of this matters - well, sometimes it can matter. — tim wood

*Ahem*...

Ok MoK, that sounds great to me. :up:

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Not at all, I don't mind at all. Here you go:

Affirmation: Synthesis.
Negation: Analysis.
Negation of the Negation: Affirmation of the Affirmation.

The last one is the polemical one. ; )

Thanks for your input. I was not aware of this. — MoK

Hmmm... do I believe you? : )
Should I believe you? : D

I will read more on Hegel when I have time. — MoK

Is that a promise?
If so, is that a promise to me?
Or to yourself?

It's a Hegelian argument, what do you expect? : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I didn't know that! — MoK

Of course you did, Young Dragon : )

There's nothing to criticize or input — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your confirmation. — MoK

No problem, mate. :up:
I'm just as seaworthy as you. :death:
Yet I'm not identical to you : )

Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion).

Somethingness: One.
Otherness: Two.
Finiteness: Three.

Infiniteness: ∞
Transfiniteness: ℵ & Ω
Setness: Transfinite symbols = {ℵ, &, Ω}

Firstness: Oneness.
Secondness: Twoness.
Thirdness: Threeness.

Permanence: that which does not change.
Nothingness:
Everythingness:

You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok, then look at this other bright side: at least this Thread hasn't degenerated into Semantics. We're still able to draw a map-territory distinction, here.

And that's something to be proud of.

The problem with the very concept of a fossil, of course, when it is used in that poetic way, is that it loses its literal meaning. And its literal meaning is just as problematic as its figurative, poetic meaning. Think of the mammoth bones that the ancient Greeks discovered in caves. They though they were cyclops bones.

That's Meillassoux's "Problem of the arche-Fossil", if it can be called that. It's more like a classical dilemma, I would say. Not really a "problem" in the technical sense of the term.

Poetically speaking, an arche-fossil (i.e., a supernova which occurred a billion years ago in a distant galaxy) is an example of what may be more accurately described as a "hyper-Fossil". It is the fossil of all fossils, the fossil to end all fossils. So to speak, of course.

Up to here, I establish that the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical and the subjective time. Now let's focus on motion as a type of change in physical and the subjective time.

P1) Physical are subject to changes such as motion (by motion here I mean a move of physical from one point in space to another point)
C1) Therefore, the Mind is Omnipresent in space since that is the Mind that causes motion in physical
P2) The subjective time is subject to changes such as motion (by motion here I mean a move of the subjective time from one point in the objective time to another point where the objective time has a beginning but no end and it is not subject to change)
C2) Therefore, the Mind is Omnipresent in the objective time since that is the Mind that causes motion in the subjective time
C3) Therefore, the Mind exists in the spacetime (from C1 and C2)
C4) Therefore, the Mind is changeless (by Occam's razor, one can assign properties to the Mind that change in spacetime but that is not necessary)
C5) Therefore, the Mind is the uncaused cause (by Occam's razor, one can assume that another substance sustains the Mind but that is not necessary) — MoK

This part is a summary of the old debate between idealism and materialism.

Up to here, I establish that the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical. Now let's focus on the subjective time.

P1) The subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in physical
P2) Any change requires the subjective time
C1) Therefore, we are dealing with an infinite regress since the subjective time is required to allow a change in the subjective time (from P1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, the Mind experiences and causes the subjective time (so subjective time is a substance too) — MoK

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian.

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change
P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience
C1) Therefore, physical and experience cannot be the cause of their own change because of overdetermination (from P1 and P2)
P3) The experience is not a substance so it cannot be the cause of physical
C2) Therefore, there must exist a substance so-called the Mind with the ability to cause physical (from P1, C1, and P3)
P4) Any change in physical at least requires two states of physical
P5) These states of physical are however related
C3) Therefore, the Mind must have the ability to experience physical (from P4 and P5)
C4) Therefore, the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical (from C2 and C3) — MoK

This argument has a Hegelian structure:

P1) First Thesis
P2) First anti-Thesis
C1) Therefore, First Synthesis (from P1 and P2) = Second Thesis
P3) Second anti-Thesis
C2) Therefore, Second Synthesis (from P1, C1, and P3) = Third Thesis
P4) Third anti-Thesis (1st New Thesis)
P5) First analysis (1st New anti-Thesis)
C3) Therefore, 1st New Synthesis (from P4 and P5) = Fourth Thesis
C4) Therefore, Third Synthesis (from C2 and C3).

Your criticisms and input as always are welcome. — MoK

There's nothing to criticize or input, .

This argument is long and dense so please bear with me. — MoK

It's a Hegelian argument, what do you expect? : )

At least you're not making a Schellingian argument, those are even worse! : D

We mustn't forget that every Dragon is born from an egg. And the average lifespan of a Dragon far surpasses the average lifespan of a human. Right?

Thanks ! You're an excellent forum moderator, one of the best I've ever seen!

(Edited because I removed a music video)

I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again. — unenlightened

Well, look at the bright side, this Thread hasn't degenerated into a debate about the shape of the Earth, and we can take some pride in that fact.

It would allow you to understand their conflict better. — unenlightened

I don't want to understand it, their conflict doesn't concern me.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way.
— Arcane Sandwich

One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. — unenlightened

I was referring to the situation involving @Agree-to-Disagree and @Mikie specifically, as in, whatever beef they have with each other, if any. I'm not here to squash the beef between them. So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question.

"Just One Fix". "I could stop if I wanted to".

An axis is a line.

And since the extrusion of a line is a plane, it follows that by having four axes (x, y, z, w), this can be represented in set-theoretical notation. But more importantly, having four axes means that, by extrusion of those four axes, there are four planes: call them a, b, c, and d.

And each plane, extruded, results in a total of four solids in this case: call them 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The common feature to 3D solids and 3D space is that both of them are 3D. But clearly, 3D space is not the same geometric object as a 3D solid in that very same space. In other words, space itself is not a geometric solid, it is instead the place where there are 3D geometric solids.

A place is a location in a space.
And a moment is a location in time.
Therefore, a moment is a geometric point in time, on the w axis.
And a place is a geometric coordinate on the x, y, and z axes.

Therefore, a line is a relation of points.
A plane is a relation of lines.
A solid is a relation of planes.

A relation is an extrusion. Therefore, a line is the extrusion of a point.
A plane is the extrusion of a line.
And a solid is the extrusion of a plane.

A space is where points, lines, planes, and solids are located.
A time is a line where points are located.
So there are two kinds of points: spatial and temporal.

Spatial points have three coordinates: on the x axis, on the y axis, and on the z axis.
Temporal points have one coordinate: on the w axis.

The simplest Geometric object is .

A point, in the mathematical sense, is a geometric object that has zero spatial dimensions. If a sphere is 3D, and if a surface is 2D, and if a line is 1D, then a point is 0D.

A line is a segment between two points. It is a continuum, since it is infinitely divisible into points. Every line is a geometric object that has one spatial dimension. A line is a hyper-point.

A surface is a geometric area between two lines. An surface is a hyper-line. A surface may be defined as a plane.

A solid is a geometric object that has three spatial dimensions.

The Earth is a four-dimensional object, since it is not only spatial (being a 3D geometric object), it is also temporal (being a 1D geometric object).

Space itself is a 3D geometric object, while time itself is a 1D geometric object.

Thanks Bob. :up:

Moving on.

The Earth has two magnetic poles: The North Pole, and the South Pole. There is no West Pole, even though there's a Western Hemisphere, and there is no East Pole, even though there's an Eastern Hemisphere.

Furthermore, there is a Southern Hemisphere, and a Northern Hemisphere.

Four Hemispheres, Two Magnetic Poles.

The Earth, having more or less the shape of a sphere (approximately, at least), has a non-Euclidean surface. This is trivial, since any Euclidean sphere (a three-dimensional geometric object) has a non-Euclidean surface (a two-dimensional, geometric object).

In fact, the very word "Geometry" means "Geo" (Earth) and "metry" (as in, metrics).

However, Geometry today is not limited to the branch of Applied Mathematics that serves Physics. Geometry is first and foremost a purely Mathematical branch, it has nothing to do with Physics. In that sense, it's a formal branch of a formal science.

Ok, sure. I like the metal band Ministry. I have no interest in "Ministry" in the religious sense, and I have no interest in "Ministry" in the bureaucratic sense either.

Yes, I agree.

That's an interesting way of conceptualizing what Logic is.

My skills as a logician are quite limited, unfortunately. I simply don't have enough time in the 24 hours of the day to do both logic and metaphysics. If I have to choose, then I choose metaphysics. Logic is very dear to my heart, though. Especially first-order predicate logic, and propositional logic. I don't have much use for second-order and higher-order logics. Set theory does interest me, though. Category theory is also something that interests me.

Let's just say that I'm a bit more interested in metaphysics than in epistemology, how about that? It sounds like a good compromise (at least to my ear, figuratively speaking, of course).