Mind is not necessarily a spiritual word. Soul is. "Soul" refers to the state of your soul is terms of ethics. For me "spirit" refers to the action of soul in doing good in the situations one finds himself. Spirit makes soul and then soul expresses itself in its culture by spirit in return. Soul is like a fountain and spirit is the running of the water

I think the English words "God" and "soul" are very important, although I don't believe in God. I think the words are key to understanding spirituality, as Kant talked about. The word "spirit" is the action of the soul in society and culture, the breathing of the soul. That's how I see it

Calculus uses infinite points to describe something that is also finite in the exact same respect. Lots of things in modern mathematics seems to contradict Aristotle's law from one side, but humans surmount it from another. When you should back on contradictions after surmounting them they look different. Another better law is that a human cannot name something in particular he knows for sure is impossible.

Many statements we make have many meanings. Contradictions are not good unless brought ("sublated") to another level. If I am in a doorway, I am both in the door way and in the room I'm stepping into. The sublation is in where you're intending to move. I hope I didn't get your thread off from where you wanted it to go and readers: feel free to post new solutions to Amalac's dilemma in the OP

I would just suggest reading about Jains's seven values logic if you are interested in Hegel's style of argument. That's a good place to start

We don't allow all contradictions all at once but let them flow as thought handles them organically. Nothing in thought is ever left behind. Preserve, cancel, transcend.

Also you seem to hold the position that there are contradictions in how you view God, morality, and matter. If this leads you unsatisfied, you need move forward to something new. Monistic phenomenology seems to have started not with Hegel but with Jainism. I'll try to find the source of this for you, but I too still reject things as false but they absorb into the wider ocean at the end of the day

I do read Hegel but a contradiction is not resolved by forcing it into place. The puzzle finds its way together on its own accord by the laws of the world. The distinction between spirit and matter is normative, not metaphysical. It's how we treat them in logic. Hegel says "For us, spirit has nature as its presupposition, and it is thereby its truth and it's absolute antecedent." Yet he also said " We have therefore to conceive nature as itself bearing the absolute Idea within itself, but nature is the Idea in the form of having been posited by absolute spirit as the opposite of spirit. In this sense we call nature a creation. " He called materialism "a naturalism such that matter is what is true and spirit its by-product" , but rejected just as strongly "that spiritualism that in utter foolishness denies nature's reality". If the spaces between thoughts is wide enough, what appears as a contradiction will latter dissolve into something new and the difference between objective and subjective will radically change

I see transendence and immanence as different but the same, and God as us and not us. The physical and spiritual are two sides of a coin

Time and space are immaterial in us as ideal and outside us as that which is necessary for the world to be

How I visualize self-creation is like having a hole that has itself as a hole, or rather a hole with holes in it which are itself. It revolves back on itself and if time can do this as well we don't need an eternal linear series leading up to the present.

I dont think there can't be nothing. There just is something and asking why is putting ourselves outside something, which is impossible. The world isn't eternal, as if it's an infinite movie. It's much easier and more natural I think to see the world as a cause sui, with time flowing in strange ways such that nothingness is in the past but doesn t produce the world.

"Hegel rejected the Newtonian conception of absolute space, arguing that the infinity of space is ideal, but, in disagreement with Kant, Hegel held that this did not require us to accept pure intuitions as uninformed by conceptuality, and therefore did not require us to accept Kant's unfortunate doctrine of the transcendental ideality of space and the dualistic distinction between things-in-themselves and appearances... It is definitely not a matter of whether nature is extended matter and spirit non-extended mental substance. Or, as we have already put it, the distinction between nature and spirit is itself a spiritual". Terry Pinkard

If you read this carefully, you will find a new type of thinking that is different from the tradition of Kant and his predecessors. It's all about logic, infinities, and philosophy

For any given consistent system S, there are infinitely many theorems and infinitely many non-theorems. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. I was just offering a philosophical look at numbers

opps, thanks

The whole point of the Copernican principle and relativity is that there is no center of the universe for the reason that every point has an equal right to be called the center. That too is strangely ironic. Consciousness is connected with objects in a perceptual experience that develops throughout life. We can not be separated from the world nor from spacetime during our existence

I think there are infinite things we can prove with math and infinite things we cant. But math starts with assumptions and that was my point. There are philosophical ways of understanding reality that excludes mathematics and all the assumptions connected to it that sprang from the school of Pythagoras. I'm not saying do away with mathematics. I was offering a way for people see reality that is based more on classical Romantic thought and dialectic than anything traditionally mathematical

Let me add another example I thought of from another thread. Maybe numbers are like energy and they become particles so to speak when they are replaced with infinities. Perhaps this is the next level up and when I said "moving in infinite circles" I meant always trying to prove things in a system where you don't know if what your trying to prove can even be proven

Words and thoughts about numbers are just like any sentence in language and they depend on how much the person values them. Consider that divination is the same as reading philosophy. They are a reading of something through a perceptual experience of our being of-the-world. The only issue is how much knowledge is gained and what is useful for life

All mathematicians says that numbers exist in some sense, which is the same as saying they have truth value. The struggle over the foundations of math is a search for ultimate certainty, much like Descartes's journey in 1641-42. Searching for logical certainty can be a mask for too much doubt

1 plus 1 equals two only if 1 and 2 exist and can exist. So things boil down to our world view at the end of the day

Well let's put the rationalist thing aside. How do you know numbers have truth value? Do you base mathematics on philosophy or on itself?

Those two sentences together comprehensively state Gödel system without using equations

If you find the word "rationalistic" insulting, it be interested to know your world view.

I merely repeated my previous post on Gödel. I just reread both of them. Anyhow are you saying they can find a limited number of theorems that they know for sure is provable from the ground up?

I said "seem" which means "appears to others' perception"

In his 1931 paper he said he set out to prove that mathematics was inconsistent (aka wrong) or incomplete. Where can the line be drawn with which to distinguish the provable from the unprovable? They still have to work out the foundations of mathematics. It sounds like you make logic or math a religion

What ad hominem?

I feel like you ask for proof for the obvious

You responded to the wrong person and wrote like a Logicist

No it's correct. I stated it boldly to bring out its true nature

You seem overly rationalistic

Gödel already proved that mathematics is either wrong or that there are infinite things that can't be proven. The problem is that they can never find where the line is between what is provable and what is not, so mathematicians will forever be searching for the finite sequence of proofs that are certainly knowable. It's enticing to look for total certainty in your field of study but it can cause problems

A lot of those into science believe matter is dead unless organic. But nothing is dead and I'm not talking about pansychism here. I'm taking about a world that has beauty and which responds to our ideas. Scientist often escape into a Platonic world and more than in other fields have breakdowns, as Gödel and Cantor unfortunately had. I started this thread with a little talk about numbers and have now moved on to my larger program about sickness of mind in the West

If they don't then they approach it from a dead universe perspective and will move in infinite circles (circles which, by the way, are better understood as infinites within Nature)

Ok. Mathematics is usually practiced as a Platonic type of religious practice. What did Plato espouse? Well he though there was a partition or doubling in reality with the shadow of the world on one side and intellectual reality on the other. These are one and yet two (very unmathematical in that sense) where one is the other of the other. I just see so much separation from the world with the union of math and science that I had to find Naturphilosophie to make sense of it. It's been widely reported that Neil de Grasse Tyson has caused a lot of depression in people (lol). One alternative is to say teleology is given by the divine to the world but another perspective is that the world is teleology and we are Nature. Anyway thanks for you insightful posts

Imagine the ruler going into space infinitely again. The density of the whole is greater than the odd parts of the ruler but the cardinality is the same. Take a marble and the Earth now. They have equal number of parts in that they have the same uncountable infinity of subdivisions. But which is larger? My point is that math should rise our thoughts to higher stages by these thoughts instead of getting stuck in an infinite process of proof and review, especially considering Gödel's theorems. Math is not done apart from Nature. What do we mean when one thing is opposed to another?

Mathematics is rigorous by effectivized formal languages, recursive axiom sets, and recursive inference rules, and explicit statements of algorithms for checking for well-formedness, axiomhood, and proof. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Logically proving mathematics from the ground up was the incompleted project known as Logicism

So anything anyone says about numbers in general is mathematics? And if your philosophizing about that mathematics is purely philosophical then that mathematics is not all true?

And what do you mean by 'infinite density'? Is that a mathematical notion of yours or purely philosophical? — TonesInDeepFreeze

From what I understand the terms "ordinal" and "density" are very much related. Wikipedia has articles on these terms but I don't know if you want to read into the math on this or not. HOWEVER, the philosophy of mathematics is a real field of study. I have books on it, and that is what this thread was about

Sometimes there is disenchantment with nature in math and science. But nature is truly enchanted. There is no such thing as a disconnected observer and the opposition within the dualism of "how things are" and "how I perceive them" can be overtaken by a holism in how we take things,

It's just about numbers in general vs sets which have infinite density

What do refer to when you say 'mathematics'? — TonesInDeepFreeze

The theory of numbers. 1, then double one, ect. But a non-dualist or infinitist mathematics would no longer deal with number and I admit I don't have many details worked out, but I think it's an interesting idea in that it would think solely in terms of concentric infinities instead of finite units