If I want to define A, I need to conceive of it as the negation of everything that it is not. — apokrisis

I don't think this is correct at all. We define "A" with a description, not by saying what it is not. "Man", for example, was defined by Aristotle as a rational animal. We have a much more refined description now, of "human being", but we clearly do not define "human being" by stating everything which is not human. I really cannot think of anything which is defined by stating what it is not.

This sort of thread is unseemly, unproductive, and lowers the tone of the site. — unenlightened

I've got a great idea. Open a new thread to bitch about this thread. Then someone can open another thread to bitch about that thread, on and on, until the whole front page consists of threads bitching about threads, and the mods will have some real work of consolidation. Then the mods can demonstrate the true nature of the age-old metaphysical question of whether an infinite number of things can actually be consolidated into One.

I won’t agree “p” represents a judgement, but even without that, “p is true”, does, so the feature of truth residing in judgement, holds. — Mww

That's not necessarily the case. "P is true" represents a judgement, but the truth or falsity of that judgement is not a feature of that particular judgement. That's why I explicitly said that truth is what is attributed to judgements. And this does not imply that the property which is attributed, necessarily inheres within the thing it is attributed to. So for example, "the grass is green" represents a judgement in which the colour green is attributed to the grass, as a property. What makes that judgement true (honest), is the judgement's relation to other judgements. Therefore truth is not a feature within the judgement itself, just like a property is not a feature within the thing itself, which is claimed to have that property.

But I say, A false statement is one that expresses a dishonest judgement. So "p is true" means that the person making that statement is presenting themselves as making an honest judgement. which only an habitual liar needs to do. The rest of us always present our honest judgement and the truth of it it 'goes without saying'. That is the redundancy of truth (amongst honest speakers). — unenlightened

Oh, I see. We assume the person is speaking honestly, unless the person is known to be dishonest. And the person who knows oneself to be known as dishonest, will apprehend a need to qualify "p" with "is true".

But wouldn't some forms of insecurity, or paranoia, also incline a person to not necessarily assume that the others are being honest. Maybe some type of skeptic is insecure in this way. It would probably do no good to ask another, 'are you telling the truth?', because if the person were lying they wouldn't admit it.

Since it is very common, that for one reason or another, people do not honestly reveal their judgements, and there are also many people who are skeptical about whether or not what is stated represents an honest judgement, there is a need for the concept of "truth" and it is not redundant at all in these common situations.

What would you say if “truth” and “false” weren’t so much attributed to judgements, but ARE themselves judgements? — Mww

That's a good question. But I think that this is actually what I was trying to avoid. If we make a judgement of true or false, then there must be something which is judged according to those terms. That something being judged, would be judged as having the attribute of true or of false. What I am saying is that this something, which is judged, is itself a judgement. So a judgement of true or false is a judgement of a judgement. It is not the statement itself, or the proposition, which is actually being judged, it is the judgement which produced the statement which is being judged. In the example, "p" is what is said to be true, so "p" represents a judgement which is judged as a true judgement.

I think it is important to understand truth in this way, because this is the way toward understanding why we must allow the law of excluded middle to be violated. When the judgement which is to be judged as true or false has not been made, it is suspended, then the judgement of that judgement is neither true nor false. The judgement has not yet been made, therefore it can be neither true nor false, as in Aristotle's famous example of the possible sea battle tomorrow. This is also the situation alluded to in the title of the thread. Pilate chooses not to judge Jesus, so there is neither truth nor falsity to his judgement concerning Jesus' guilt. He refused to judge what what was said about Jesus, so he neither truly nor falsely judged Jesus.

For unenlightened, "p is true" means "p is false, but I want you to believe p." — unenlightened

No, this is wrong. A "true" statement is one which expresses an honest judgement. So "p is true" means the statement "p" is what the person making that statement honestly believes. What many in this thread seem to ignore is that "true" and "false" are attributed to judgements. Ignoring this simple feature of truth leads to endless discussion getting nowhere.

The mechanistic world view is dependent on the idea of continuous time. If, in reality, the flow of time is not continuous, then there are aspects of reality which are located outside "time", as represented by us, as continuous. In other words, it may be the case that the mechanistic world view is based in an inadequate understanding of time.

Take a T-sentence and hold meaning constant by putting the very same expression on both sides...

"p" is true IFF p

...and you have an account of truth.

Take a true T-sentence, where "p" is some proposition and q gives its truth conditions,

"p" is true IFF q

and you have in q exactly what is needed to set out the meaning of p.

Between the two you have an account of the relation between meaning and truth.

It is sublimely trivial. — Banno

If "p" is true IFF p, and "p" is true IFF q, then p and q are the very same thing. I agree that this is very trivial, but it says absolutely nothing useful about the relation between meaning and truth. That is because you've exclude meaning from truth, by reducing truth to a statement of identity, saying that "q" and "p" must signify the very same thing.

They took his passports? — Michael

First step on the road to the slammer.

And I disagree with you. Weather forecasting has become hugely more accurate since the advent of computer modelling, but it hasn't become more scientific, just better informed and capable of faster calculation. — unenlightened

Weather forecasting has become more scientific. The computers use observational data in producing
their models. It is the increase in available observational data, and the computer's increased capacity to process observational data which has made weather forecasting more accurate. A prediction made with an absence of observational data is completely unscientific, relying on something other than science. And observational data is essential to science. So an increase in observational data in the forecast, which is what computer modeling gives us. means a more scientific forecast.

The estimation of error is an important aspect of experimental science. — unenlightened

This I think is a feature lacking from common weather forecasts, which would improve the forecast, the estimation of error. Under some weather conditions, the forecast for tomorrow, or even the next day, is made with a high degree of certainty. Under other conditions the forecast is made with a lower degree of certainty. So the forecasters could include in the forecast a declaration of confidence. They could give the forecast for tomorrow for example, and qualify it with 'ninety per cent confidence', or maybe only 'seventy per cent confidence', or something like that. Then the further into the long range that the forecast extended, the lower the degree of confidence would be. It would be another tool in the forecaster's kit, giving interpretational guidance to the audience.

I might be the only one, but I don't think a mere metaphysician should be getting involved in matters of science. Metaphysician Undercover — Changeling

That may be true, but as I've explained already, this thread is not concerned with a matter of science, it is concerned with a matter of speculation, and that is where a metaphysician is right at home.

The principles are not at all simple in their interaction and you have entirely omitted the role of salinity. — unenlightened

I omitted the role of salinity because it is a secondary feature. The point is, that as secondary, changes in salinity cannot cause the GCB to actually shut off. Some articles place salinity as a primary feature, implying that cooled water would not sink if there was no salinity. But this is not true, as we notice in fresh water lakes.

The online articles about the THC, or GCB, are not very consistent with each other. Where they place the underwater flow varies greatly. Also, I've noticed discrepancy in the time required to complete the cycle, with reports varying between 700 and 1500 years. How can they talk about a slight slow down when there is that much discrepancy already? Also, it is stated in the quote I took, that in the practise of measurement, the flow sometimes does not even follow the path presumed by the model.

However, radical changes in circulation can certainly happen due to climate change, that will in turn have a large influence on the climate. — unenlightened

Radical changes will happen, there is no doubt in my mind. The big factors are the earth's spinning, its interaction with the sun, and the positioning of land masses. The land masses we know to be changing, with volcanoes and plate tectonics. These features seem to be attributable to internal forces of the earth. Changes to the properties of the water itself (salinity, turbidity, etc.) could also causes lesser changes which could appear to us as large changes, due to our limited observational time scale. Changes to the properties of the atmosphere, since winds are a driving force, would also change the THC.

I see that a number of scientists now speak about the water in the oceans in terms of water masses, like meteorologists speak of air masses. These are masses of water with similar properties, which may move in away similar to air masses. So we can make an analogy between a polar air mass, and a polar water mass. The air masses have boundaries and the boundaries are areas of turbulent weather. Differences in salinity exaggerate the boundaries. In the case of air masses, portions of the polar air mass move toward the equator, sliding underneath portions of the warmer air mass moving poleward. Along the boundaries we have the jet streams, where the mixing occurs. (I acknowledge this as an over simplification.) The jet streams are not stable, always changing, and sometimes even totally breaking down to reform in a new location. This lack of continuity makes them difficult to predict. Scientists have produced some success in predicting the jet streams in the short term, through extensive observation of the air masses. but the discontinuity presents a real problem. Movement can be modeled, but a lack of movement won't indicate where the next movement will be. This means that features related to the cause of movement are missing from the theories, requiring some "guess work" in the modeling, making the models unscientific in that sense.

If we take the jet streams as analogous with the water flow, we see that these are mainly east/west directional, and are the product of the mixing of air masses to the north and south. The jet streams do not take heat from the equator to the north pole, or cold in an opposite direction, the flow represents the mixing of the heat differential. Therefore I believe that the GCB, or THC, ought to be modeled more like this. Rather than as transmitting heat from equator to poles, it ought to be described as currents produced from the mixing of water masses with different properties. A water mass in contact with another, with different properties, will flow.

Models of complex systems are always simplifications, and always inexact. Like weather forecasts, climate forecasts are subject to error that increases with the timescale. But this does not make them unscientific. — unenlightened

I disagree. The "guess work" which goes into these models is unscientific. That is the problem. True science is mixed with pseudoscience in a way where the outcome is models consisting of both. The true science does not have the required observational data, nor the required proven theories, to make the desired models. So the gaps are filled with pseudoscience. The simple issue is that the science required to make these models does not exist, yet the models are produced and presented as science. So they must be classified as pseudoscience due to the fact that the true science is contaminated within the model. Models contaminated with pseudoscience are not scientific. This is a problem which our computer driven society, which greatly facilitates model making, presents us with, unscientific models which people are inclined to call science.

So some published support is required for your pontifications as much as for the rest of us. — unenlightened

https://www.whoi.edu/news-insights/content/the-future-of-the-oceans-conveyor-belt/
https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/two-new-studies-advance-understanding-of-currents/
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/686

Notice, in the first reference, the changes to the THC currently observed are described as "natural variability". Beyond that, it's all speculation. And notice as well, the concluding paragraph of the third reference;

As it turns out, recent research on the detailed configuration of surface and deep currents shows that circulation is much more complex than the GCB. Floats deployed in the ocean don’t always follow expected pathways in the GCB model. Wind actually plays a more significant role in causing downwelling than previously thought. Moreover, mixing by small systems or eddies plays a large role in driving surface currents.

The THC (GCB) will not stop, the principles are simple. The earth's surface is heated unevenly by the sun. The earth spins therefore the Coriolis effect. Warm water will be moved from equator toward the poles, and cold water dropped to the depths, and moved by other forces toward the equator, to replenish surface water moved out from there by the Coriolis effect. The positioning of land masses has the greatest influence over how and where this occurs. Other factors also play a role.

I'm going to push back on this. Climatology is science. — Tate

Climatology is said to be a science, I do not deny that. And what you've presented here you seem to present as science, that's why I called it "so-called science". But the stuff you've presented and referenced, in this thread, if it is claimed to be science, is really pseudoscience. It's pseudoscience because the theories and predictions made cannot be verified or falsified

That's how science rolls, though. Speculate, model, test, repeat. — Tate

Yes, that's a fair representation of the scientific method, but what is lacking in your claimed scientific climatology is the "test" part. So all we have is 'speculate, model, repeat'. That's not science.

You seem to be suggesting that the slowing of the circulation may trigger re-glaciation. but this looks to be backwards. Rather it is the melting sea ice that is reducing the salinity and thus the density of the water and so slowing the circulation. Re-glaciation would increase the salinity and thus strengthen the circulation. — unenlightened

I think the situation is a lot more complex than this. Evaporation also increases salinity, and this makes denser warm water, possibly increasing water temperatures at greater depths. Further, increased evaporation increases the flow of fresh water, and this makes greater surface circulation. But, as I explained earlier, surface flow is insufficient to replenish the volume of surface water flowing way from equatorial areas, so there will always be an upwelling of colder water in equatorial areas.

It's slowing down now. here — Tate

That's highly speculative. As I've explained, such currents change, but it's impossible that the THC, on a global scale, could stop. And these speculations you refer to are very unscientific. First, the article admits that the evidence is "proxy" evidence, and this is extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. Ocean currents, especially those at various levels of depth, have not been adequately measured. And, they admit that only nine out eleven of those "proxy" observations actually confirm this "slowing" thesis. Furthermore, the description of the THC in that article doesn't even include the freezing factor described by unenlightened. It seems to only described increased salination due to evapouration:

The AMOC is driven by two vital components of ocean water: temperature and salt. In the North Atlantic, warm, salty water flows northward off the U.S. coastline, carrying heat from the tropics. But as it reaches the middle latitudes, it cools, and around Greenland, the cooling and the saltiness create enough density that the water begins to sink deep beneath the surface.

Read this article, exploring the possibility that the THC (thermohaline circulation) is responsible for longer and shorter term changes in climate. It also talks about the debate about how the Younger Dryas actually started. — Tate

The problem with this sort of so-called "science" is that when dealing with long time scales without direct observations, it is impossible to distinguish cause from effect. So, we see a change in THC as coincident with a change in climate. Yes, of course, the two go hand in hand as two parts of the same phenomenon. But it is a mistake to conclude that one is the cause of the other.

All in all, the more I find out, the more the whole affair looks like humanity as a mad scientist in the process of blowing up his laboratory and speculating about whether he will be roasted or frozen or both. — unenlightened

The THC cannot shut itself off. The fundamental feature is that warmed surface water will move away from equatorial areas. This is 'forced' by the spinning of the planet and the consequent Coriolis effect. The replenishment of water, via surface mechanisms is not equally 'forced'. There is a force away from the equator at the surface, but not an equal push back toward it. This will always create an upwelling of colder water from the depths. The same process is observed on lakes with a prevailing wind, without any influence salination.

There's a lot more than one flawed intellectual mechanism out there. And what has happened is that these flawed intellectual mechanisms have led us to dead ends in the evolution of the world of science.
Dead ends are where our attempts to understand can go no further due to the faulty principles being applied, like the dead end which has been reached in quantum mechanics. Dead ends are an integral part of evolution because evolution is a process based in trial and error. The dinosaurs got bigger and bigger, but bigger wasn't necessarily better. In the case of the evolution of scientific understanding, we get the opportunity to look back and find those faulty intellectual mechanisms, and how they led us in the wrong direction.

There is no point at infinity in the complex plane. That point is by definition outside the plane. To allow it in is to break the rules of the structure. There is no north pole in the Reimann sphere. This is a simple result of the incommensurability between the curved line and the straight line. A tangential line can never actually touch the curved line at a point, because the curved line requires multiple points to express its curved nature, in relation to the straight line. So there cannot be a "point" on a curved line, in the same way there can be a "point" on a straight line. Likewise, there is no centre point of a classical two dimensional circle, as indicated by the irrationality of pi. The one dimensional and the two dimensional are fundamentally incompatible.

This is why zero, like infinity, has no place within ordinal numbers, and must be excluded. "Order" is something other than the numbers which represent it, and at those supposed points, zero and infinity, which mark the ends of the order, the represented order is excluded.

It is mind-blowing if you're into that stuff, but I'd say it's not at all surprising.

The thermohaline circulation does. It was in the link. — Tate

The thermohaline circulation is not an ocean current, nor is it a group of currents. As I said already, it's a vague and extremely general abstraction, which is not at all useful for prediction purposes.

And, it is very common for THC to lead to faulty predictions.

Only in the sense that they have so many exact, formal systems that successfully employ zero that you'd want to know which successful specification of the concept was context relevant. — Pie

If your goal is deception, ambiguity is a very useful tool. Therefore successful employment of the term does not indicate that the term is not ambiguous.

Let's just say you're beyond hope, Isaac.

The circulation requires a heat differential between surface and bottom water in the north Atlantic. As that area cools due to polar ice sheet melting, the differential is minimized. Scientists are presently keeping a close eye on it because the ocean currents are slowing. — Tate

Actually, I don't think the circulation requires a heat differential at all. As I explained, it is the product of the spinning planet. The heat differential is created by the uneven heating of the planet, by the sun, but this is not required for the circulation, which is caused by the spinning of the planet, not the heating of it.

And, it is really not accurate to say "ocean currents are slowing", because the currents are not at all stable, they are always in flux, constantly changing. While one current slows down a bit, another speeds up. So long as the earth is spinning, the water is flowing, and the moving water will transport heat when the surface is unevenly heated.

Most mathematicians seem to just take zero for granted, with zero understanding of what "zero" means. But of course, as I explained, the meaning of "0", as it is commonly used by mathematicians, is ambiguous.

Exactly. I can't even remember why I came into the kitchen, and you're trying to sell it as a route of access to the truths of the universe? — Isaac

No, I took those questions as personal problems which could potentially be resolved through introspection, not as having anything to do with "the truths of the universe". You asked me some questions about the relationship between specific beliefs you hold, and the way you behave. But I didn't know that your memory was so poor that introspection could not help you with those issues. A psychologist, or perhaps even a physician, might be the better route for you.

(I can't wait to see all the action when you guys move on to FRACTIONS :scream: ) — jgill

Fractions are pure nonsense, from the get go, so we'll probably never get there.

And yet, when introducing children to the concept of negatives, we use a line to wit the number line. — Agent Smith

This is the very problem I referred to. The numberline shows us an order, and this order gives zero a place. But zero has no place within an order, because it would mean that there is a position of no order within that order, which is contradictory. Set theory suffers this problem which I discussed extensively with fishfry, who insisted that a set with no order is a coherent concept.

In common usage though, negative numbers are used to represent quantitative values, and here zero has a justified meaning. So it is the equivocation in usage, between "negative numbers" representing quantitative values, and "negative numbers" representing positions in an order, which causes a problem.

"Have I habitually told people the space above their heads is empty?"
If you answer this question for yourself, would you invent the answer, or would you utilize your memory to produce an answer? I would use my memory. We could class reference to memory as an act of using one's creative power, but then how would we distinguish between fact and fiction?

How do we identify the old beliefs from the new beliefs? Do they have some kind of labelling system? — Isaac

I would say that we distinguish old beliefs from new, by means of the justification. One would not drop an old belief in favour of a new belief, unless this was justified. And, in my explanation, the whole reason for adopting new beliefs is an increase in one's capacity to reason, as the person grows up. So in introspection, we might find numerous beliefs which we hold, that have never been justified, and some that we do not even know how we got them, as they just popped into the mind, came at a young age, or are possibly even innate. These are older beliefs, which are often the foundation for habits. If a belief is the basis for a habit, it is necessarily old, because habits take time to develop. Why do I put my shoes on before I get in the car to drive? At some point I developed the belief that it's not good to drive in bare feet. It's a habit I have, derived from an old belief.

But at some point, we might reassess such old beliefs, and even justify a conflicting new principle, which becomes the new belief, thus apprehending the need to break the old habit, as a bad habit. If the person cannot break the bad habit, yet believes it ought to be broken, then the person succumbs to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is very common and we ought not be ashamed of it, though it has received bad connotations. We all wish our children will do better than ourselves, and recognize where they ought not follow ourselves as an example. This is because it's easier to change one's beliefs than it is to change one's habits, and if I cannot break a bad habit, I might at least instill something better in my children.

Why don't the new beliefs form habits (if the old ones did), and if they do how do we identify new-belief habits from old-belief habits?

Whence my belief that the space above Glen's head is empty? Have I habitually told people the space above their heads is empty?

How do we identify which belief (of the hundreds required to carry out even the smallest task) is the one which is causing the defunct habit? — Isaac

These questions are answered through introspection.

It looks like this: — Tate

That map is extremely vague, just showing some generalities. It's not at all useful for any attempt to determine anomalies. The whole concept of "oceanic heat conveyor", is equally vague, and overly generalized. The oceans are always going to convey heat, so long as the earth is spinning, and the sun is heating, that's what the oceans do. What is at issue, if you are talking about a potential trigger point, is minute peculiarities, and changes to how the oceans convey heat. Since the vast majority of oceanic flow is well below the surface, the information is not available to produce an adequate model. That's why El Nino cannot be accurately predicted, it is a feature of the upwelling of cold water, resulting in a change in surface temperature.

We're in that low threshold period now, and the ocean currents are slowing down due to global warming. — Tate

I really see no reason why warming would cause ocean currents to slow down, because the earth would continue spinning. It could cause changes to them, perhaps even speed some up.

I think that is not the case. I suggest that you do believe in other minds, except for the purposes of the peculiar game of writing posts on the philosophy forum. As evidence for that, I cite your continued participation in this thread. Not just that you continue to interact with us, but that you demonstrate a reasonable level of interaction - you are able to access and use a device of some sort in order to be here, you have a reasonable grasp of English, you recognise humour and have a grasp of the nature of argument and some familiarity with the philosophical context in which we are talking. If you did not believe in other minds, these interactions would be difficult to explain. — Banno

Very often, people act in ways contrary to their beliefs. Therefore you cannot make accurate conclusions about one's beliefs, from ones actions. Furthermore, people act in contrary ways, saying things ( a type of acting) which are incompatible with other things they are doing. This is known as hypocrisy.

This is the important demonstration which Wittgenstein makes through his use of hypocrisy in the Philosophical investigations, which you continually ignore and deny. You seem to think that what Wittgenstein says, is an expression of what is doing, or demonstrating in that text, so you refer to what he says as what he has demonstrated. I've repeatedly explain to you, over and over again, that what Wittgenstein has demonstrated is that what he has said, is false. That is the Socratic method, to demonstrate the falsity of a statement. But you refuse to apprehend and understand what Wittgenstein is doing with his words, in those demonstrations, opting to simply believe he is demonstrating the truth of what he states.

Ok re-reading your post I see what you're saying. We are born with beliefs, and need proof to change them, if I can summarize.

This seems obvious though, and not sure what it has to do with the topic. I may have been born believing there are other minds, or born believing the opposite. Does that have anything to do with whether there ARE other minds? — GLEN willows

What happens, described in a general way, is that we form habits which are based on beliefs held at a particular time (when we're very young, we don't even acknowledge those habit forming beliefs, they are the beliefs, our trainers, or even innate). As we develop a stronger and stronger rational capacity (the power to reason), we may produce beliefs which are inconsistent with our habitual actions which were formed by the prior beliefs. Then, the conscientious human being will see the need to break the habits, and this is not easy, as the reality of our habit of burning fossil fuels and polluting the earth with CO2 demonstrates.

Relative to the topic of the thread, solipsism, and Banno's explanation, one might act as if there is other minds, when these habits are viewed from the premise that training is the influence of other minds, but a person might understand principles which deny the reality of other minds, and deny that these habits are formed by the influence of other minds. This is why "grounds" becomes very important, because the two possible grounding points, how the person acts, and what the person believes, can very well be opposed to each other.

The general principles involved in ocean currents can be described. First, the prevailing wind at the equator is from the east, due to the spin of the earth, the air doesn't spin along with the earth fast enough to keep up with the earth, so there is a constant wind from the east. This pushes the warm water at the equator, which is the most heated from the sun, toward the west. It naturally curves away from the equator, to the right in the north, and the left in the south, as the Coriolis effect. So in the northern hemisphere, surface water moves northward along the east coast of the large continents, and southward along the west coast This brings heat toward the poles in a way which is sort of like convection, but the principal source of the wind is the mechanical spinning of the earth, rather than a convective wind. This is important, the principal "weather maker" is the mechanics of a spinning body with oceans and an atmosphere, solar heating and convection are secondary.

The surface currents of the oceans would be a simple process, except the surface water is forced away from the equator by the winds of the spinning body, and there is no such force to bring replacement surface water, from the north and south. That's why it's different from convection which is solely temperature driven. So much of the replacement water, at the equator, has to come from the depths. This creates flows in the depths, and these flows are not well understood. El Nino is known as a slowing of this flow of cold replacement water along the west coast of South America.

You can see that the real cycle is not a flow of surface water, but the cycling of water from the surface to the bottom, and back to the surface. It is very complicated because there are many layers and the layers are not necessarily vertical, as it is a three dimensional activity. We can imagine principles similar to air movement, but on a slower scale, horizontal winds, vertical convections, and the movement of distinct "air masses" (water masses in this case). None of these activities are well understood.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist, science educator, author) said something to the effect that the universe isn't in any way obligated to make sense to humans - it (the universe) can, it looks as though, do whatever the hell it wants; humans and their silly standards, bah! :snicker: — Agent Smith

This is why, we, as human beings are required to to shape or formulate our principles in such a way so as to make sense of the universe. The onus is on us to make sense of the universe, not on the universe to make sense to us. And that is also why our principles (mathematical axioms etc.) cannot be eternal unchanging objects, as in Platonism, because we shape them, as required, to make sense of the universe.

However, there is a definite problem which arises. The world is observed by us. to be bound by some principles of order. So the problem is in how can we understand the real existence of these principles (natural laws as some would say), which we infer from our observations of the world, to have real governance over the world. In other words, "the universe isn't in any way obligated to make sense to humans", as you say, but for some reason, in many ways it does make sense to us.

Of course we formulate our artificial laws of "order" in the universe to match the existing natural order within the universe, and that is why the universe makes sense to us, but what type of existence does this natural order actually have? If all things in the universe follow some sort of natural order, then the order must be prior to the things, as logic dictates that the follower is posterior to what is followed. That is what distinguishes the natural laws from the artificial laws, the former are prior to the things while the latter are posterior to the things.

You've confused yourself again. Go try and score points elsewhere, MU. — 180 Proof

Ad hominem instead of making an attempt at a coherent reply, 180 Proof's MO.

If you're into counting points, mark one for me, zero for you. Care to try for a reply to redeem yourself?

We can draw an example from weather forecasting. The accuracy of the long term forecast is highly dependent on the accuracy of the short term forecast. Consider a seven day forecast. If the first 24-48 hrs. is incorrect, by even a small factor which is somehow missed, this will likely make the later portion completely irrelevant so that it's not even close. But if the first 48 hrs. hold true to the forecast, the later period will likely just need small changes. What this indicates is that a very slight, unforeseen change, in the very near future will render any long term model which does not account for it, completely useless. The closer in time to the beginning point of the forecast period, the unforeseen factor is, the smaller it needs to be, to have a large affect on the accuracy of the long term. This could be like the "trigger point" you referred to earlier.

What is "ridiculous" is assuming a perspective for which there are not any grounds to assume and then use such an groundless assumption as a conditional or premise.

↪GLEN willows Epistemic warrant (of assent) does not require that claims (re: e.g. other minds) "be certainly established". Reasonably, there are not any grounds to doubt that there are other minds. — 180 Proof

That a specific claim has no grounds is something which needs to be proven. The person making the questionable claim may be asked to justify it, and failure to do this still does not prove that the claim is "groundless".

The issue though, which Wittgenstein demonstrated in "On Certainty", is that groundlessness is something which cannot be proven, because that would require grounds. So we just assign "irrational", or as you say, "ridiculous", to specific claims, but this is not the same as "groundless". The problem though, is that we have no real standards by which we make such a judgement, because the judgement it is not something which is proven. So the judgement is really just a personal opinion.

So you start by saying that a specific perspective is groundless, and ridiculous, and you end by saying that a different perspective is groundless, but reasonable, without any principles to support such judgements.

I never understood duality. Sorry Heraclitus. — Agent Smith

Do you understand the difference between an instance of something being good, and the ideal good, the best thing?

If all there is, is self, then there is no other, and hence no self. — Banno

This is not true, and it is a very common mistake. A thing, be it a self or any other thing, is described by referring to its properties, not by referring to "the other". So a thing (such as a self), may be in complete isolation, with all of its properties, with no other.

The idea that a thing requires an other seems to have been derived from a Hegelian idealism. Ideals, such as "the best", "the biggest", "positive", "hottest", etc., are defined in relation to their opposite term, because there is no empirical quality which represents them, being simply ideals. They are ideals which form the basis for a quantitative scale. But it is a mistake (category) to confuse ideals with things such as selves, saying that a self requires an other.

I don't know, I'm not a mathematician, and I wouldn't want to try. Here's a couple things to keep in mind though. The symbols "-" and "+" mean something different when they are used to indicate negative and positive numbers, from what they mean when they indicate operations, addition and subtraction. Also, the numerals mean something different when they are used to represent an order (ordinals), from what they mean when they represent a quantity (cardinals).

When we use numerals to represent quantity, zero allows for the potential for a quantity of the specified type of thing, as none of that thing. This allows that a negative quantity of the thing has valid meaning, as the potential to negate a specified positive quantity. But when we use numerals to represent an order, zero doesn't receive any coherent meaning. In general, "1" would represent the first of an order, and it doesn't make sense to place zero as prior to the first because this would negate the order altogether, as no order. Nor would it make sense to place zero as prior to the order, as the potential for that order, because then it cannot represent a part of that order.

The logical thing would be to use zero as the dividing point between the order, and the reversal of the order. So zero would, in a sense, represent the potential for the order, and also the potential for the inverse of the order. But it cannot appear within the order as part of the order, neither forward nor backward. Now the negative numbers would represent an inverse order which is exactly opposite to the positive order. It would be impossible for operations on the positive side to cross over to the negative side, or vise versa, without correcting for the reversal of the order. The means for correction being specific to the type of order being represented.

So for example, take "order" in the most general sense. Two minus three seems to imply a crossing of the order's boundary. But we cannot allow that, without setting up the conditions for the order's reversal. What is three places prior to the second place? This is one step before the first (the first being the beginning). Notice the order now, 2, 1, -1. The -1 signifies one place in the inverse direction, one step before the beginning. Zero cannot occupy a place here because that would annihilate the order altogether. What happens with "2-2"? That means two places before the second place. And this negates the order altogether, giving zero a place, but only when the order is completely annihilated altogether.

I think the common convention is to just give zero a place in the order, no different from ten or any other number. But this denies any real separation between negative and positive numbers, making them all just a part of an endless order, upward and downward. No beginning to the order. Then, when operations are carried out, the numerals tend to represent quantities, and the real meaning of zero relative to quantity (as described above) is lost, because of zero's faulty positioning as part of an order. So there is a conflation of numbers representing order (in which zero makes no sense as part of), and numbers representing quantity, where zero of a specified quantity makes sense. That's a type of equivocation.

You know there is a problem with multiplying and dividing negative numbers, which results in imaginary numbers, adding another whole level of complexity to numbers. What does it really mean to take a number a negative number of times, 2 x -1 for example. That's a negation of an operation. So two times negative one ought to equal zero, because we've taken two and negated it once, to make zero. If we negate two twice, 2 X -2, we ought to have negative two. What if we take negative two twice though, "-2 x 2" ? That looks like -4. So does "2 x -2" mean something different from "-2 x 2"? Multiplication isn't necessarily reversible.

Anyway, this kind of scientific program does look like an attempt to take the basic empiricist dogma,

Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses
— Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 2 a. 3 arg. 19.

literally. But for the sake of theoretical psychology, rather than metaphysical deductions.

Was my point. — bongo fury

That "basic empirical dogma" is the reason for the separation between divine ideas or divine intelligible objects, as independent, or separate Forms, and human ideas, or intelligible objects, which are dependent on the material body of the human being.

The intelligible objects which are apparent to the human mind are dependent on sensation, which is a function of the material body, as described by Aristotle. The intelligible objects which exist as separate, and independent Forms, are prior to, and necessary for, the existence of material objects, as the cause of them, and therefore cannot be dependent on material bodies.

This is an important point because it elucidates the separation between human ideas and divine ideas, and accounts for the fallibility of the human intellect. The human intellect is fallible in its apprehension of immaterial forms (intelligible objects) because of its dependence on the material body.

So -4 × 2 = -8 is easily grasped as adding -4 twice (-4 + -4 = -8), negative numbers simply being a different kind of number). — Agent Smith

If -4 x 2 equals -8, then -4 + -4 ought to equal zero. "-4 x 2" means negative four taken twice, and that is negative eight. But "-4 + -4" means negative four added to negative four, and to add necessarily takes you in the positive direction, while subtraction necessarily takes you in the negative direction. Therefore adding negative four to negative four ought to bring you to zero.

However, from the books I read -4 × -2 = 8 is rather difficult to comprehend intuitively. What does adding -4 negative two times mean? It's just a pattern that's all and nothing in our everyday experiences can be used to convey the meaning of this particular calculation to children and adults alike. — Agent Smith

What you say here is somewhat incoherent. When you multiply negative four by two, you simply take negative four twice, you do not add negative four two times. Multiplication does not involve addition, whatsoever, it is a distinct operation. It may be that you were told that multiplying is a matter of adding the number a specified number of times, but it is really not a case of adding. To take something twice, or three times, or four times, is not the same thing as adding. That multiplication is not a simple operation of addition becomes more evident when you do powers, or exponents.

Doesn't Schopenhauer qualify as a #1 without a divine foundation? His notion of a blind, striving, instinctive Will, which is not metacognitive, isn't really a god analogue, is it? — Tom Storm

I must admit that I haven't read Schopenhauer, only secondary sources, so I'm sorry but I'm really not in a position to comment on this.

Philosophy is not exegesis. — Banno

I don't see how that's true. If you studied philosophy in school, I think you would have found that exegesis is a very significant part of what philosophy is. I don't think I had any philosophy courses which did not consist of some exegesis.

But true or false, I don't see how it's relevant. You really need to at least attempt to explain yourself Banno, or else you're nothing but a lost soul making sounds. Exegesis of philosophical texts is good advice to a lost soul.

Metaphysician Undercover missed the next section of that quote which explained that 1 is ontological idealism and 2 is epistemological idealism. An epistemological idealist can be an ontological dualist/pluralist (e.g. Kant). — Michael

Number 1 idealists are dualist as well. Notice they say that the mental is the ultimate foundation of reality, like Plato, Neo-Platonists, Aristotle, and Christian theologians. This is reflected in Cartesian dualism. Only an extreme case of #1 says "all is mental", like Berkeley argues. But Berkeley still falls into the category of dualist, by maintaining a separation between the divine and the human. What Berkeley denies, is that the separation between the two is properly described by "matter".

There is a problem with this type of discussion, displayed at the beginning of the thread, and this is that people will not take " the divine", or "God" seriously, and so the discussion cannot go there. Without taking the divine seriously, we cannot understand the #1 idealism, as the mental constituting the foundation of reality. Then "the mental" becomes human thought, and idealism appears to be monist.