For Hegel, otherness of something is being-for-another. When non-Ego presents itself, being-for-another becomes the self relation of being-in-itself. Although he wasn't a philanthropist, I feel a spiritual core in Hegels work which seems lacking in Heidegger. Heidegger's world is like a spurious infinity with no mind in control of gears

"Being-there is being with a determinacy.. As reflected into itself in this it's determinacy, being-there is that which is there, something.. As a being-there and as a something, it is only a form of the something. It is as otherness." This sounds like Heidegger huh? It's Hegel

Plato thought our world was a shadow. Aristotle said no, there are definite discrete substances all about us. Hegel wrote that Plato was the first scientifically minded philosopher.

So what is a book? Is it energy? What is energy? Does energy display force or is force just atoms letting you know they are there? If you put your hand in front of a fan you can feel force, or are you feeling the atoms of the fan? What matter is is not settled in philosophy.

I see the main question on this subject as whether we create the world or the world creates us. What that world is, and what are we, are the eternal questions that we may never have an answer for

Feeling evil feelings is different than doing evil. Everyone likes something evil now and than. Satanism is about the aesthetic of darkness

The

Be the first person ever to define matter

Heidegger talked of not following the "they". For the Nazis, the they became the world. Heidegger knew a struggling culture that obviously went the wrong way in the end

Platonic forms exist in our minds, not outside

Banach tarski has immeasurable things form new objects. Are they saying they can take one object and only one object out of an object of the same size? How big was the original object. I don't think there is anything purely finite, inside math and outside.

This thread is no longer about the OP. To me it sounds unreasonable to say a casual chain goes back forever and that this is it's explanation. If you can't explain it without going back to infinity, adding past eternity doesn't help. The series has no efficacy because it's based on nothing, every member of the series being intermediate. Some posit a supernatural God or Gods in another "order" (orders are above dimensions) to start the series, but I like combining Descartes with Heidegger. Keep Heidegger's "potentiality-for-being" but throw out anything that looks like absolute time. You have the casual change going back to the first movement, a potential. People have trouble with how it goes from potential to actual without something or Someone (?) acting on it. I don't see the problem. The potential is in everything and all there is is the casual changes of the universe. What causes what can be debated, but the series goes back to to first pull of force in the mechanistic sense. There is nothing prior to it because time only is definable within the series as it moves. And here is where Heidegger can come in with his ideas of how being becomes actual for us. I think I have a comprehensive position and one that is a fine alternative to the Thomistic position on God. So you can atomically look at every motion of the series and see how it goes back to the first motion. This is a philosophical position of course

What if they prove that you can take a greater object from a smaller? How is that much different than B\T? To me B\T says that is nothing discrete in geometry anymore

I think Banach-Tarski disproves common mathematics the way Godel set out to do (but failed). It breaks math

Poker is one hundred percent luck. I make the same move every time because there no reason not too lol

The

I'm not sure he published anything, but I'm under the impression his private writings have been out together in many volumes. I'm a book person and not adapt at surfing the internet

The substratum of what we see is beauty. We look with our right subjective mind and our left objective mind and conclude, with will, that it's objective. But that's choosing what's true. That is, there is faith. Hegel wanted to get rid of faith by knowing nothing and everything, balancing the objective and subjectice. The basic fact is beauty is subjectice, so tim wood has been correct. Hegel kept a homey natural faith to keep from scepticism

It seems to me that a point, a segment, and a plane are only connected logically, and it is the error of higher mathematics to connect them physically or mathematically

Hegel says we create patterns.

"Space is abstract generality"

"To speak of points of space, as if they constituted the positive element of space, is inadmissible"

(Only the mind can be continuous)

"Points are the negation of space because it is immediate undifferentiation" (Heidegger thought this refers to potentiality, the ground)

Splitting up causality into four parts makes it difficult to question causality itself, which Nagarjuna did. Aristotle did the latter to avoid the question. Have the readers read Aquinas. He avoids every question by trying to make distinctions without justifying the ground. Aristotle and Aquinas level jump with knowledge itself. They really have no arguments for anything and Descartes knew this

Take music as a perfect example. People at the Catholic college i went to insisted Mozart was objectively the greatest secular composer. People with that kind of brain matter exist. Apokrisis is leading people down that path

I think that patterns are like infinity and the finite, because we all use a subjective mind and an objective mind. A person who doesn't believe in supernatural gods or a god is not a real Aristotelian but that's ok because he was best understood by Hegel and Heidegger. He was ancient but they modern. But again realize that you are using a subjective and objective mind. They don't cancel out. The subjective wins.

I think that what underlies everything is the pure potentiality of Infinity and Finitude. If you have a segment pi in length, then a piece of the segment corresponds to each number. It goes on forever (Infinite) but has a limit (Finite). Where the infinite meets the finite (at the limit) is an infinity mystery. So nature can never even be understood

Materialist don't agree with your premise so the argument fails

Science and philosophy both say that something can be better than bare zero. If life is worth living than there is a reason 1 is greater than 0

It's their premise so your argument doesn't work. It's a consistent position

If matter is an illusion, then ye the mind is not material. That's axiomatic

Their position says it can't be an illusion lol

The problem with your argument is that materialist believe matter is not an illusion!

Well i mustered the stamina to read the rest of the article. I don't feel like the author really gets Descartes (he is too into modern physics for that). Descartes was the first philosopher I got into, the first I really liked, as an adult. For him, there are spiritual things, extension (matter), and forces which live in extension. Here are the rest of the important stuff from the article:

"In order to better grasp the specific role of Cartesian force, it would be useful to closely examine his theory of centrifugal effects... Besides straight-line motion, Descartes’ second law also mentions the 'center-fleeing' (centrifugal) tendencies of circularly moving material bodies: 'all movement is, of itself, along straight lines; and consequently, bodies which are moving in a circle always tends to move away from the center of the circle which they are describing' (Pr II 39). At first glance, the second law might seem to correspond to the modern scientific dissection of centrifugal force: specifically, the centrifugal effects experienced by a body moving in a circular path, such as a stone in a sling, are a normal consequence of the body’s tendency to depart the circle along a straight tangential path. Yet, as stated in his second law, Descartes contends (wrongly) that the body tends to follow a STRAIGHT line away from the center of its circular trajectory. That is, the force exerted by the rotating stone, as manifest in the outward 'pull' on the impeding sling, is a result of a striving towards straight line inertial motion directed radially outward from the center of the circle, rather than a striving towards straight line motion aimed along the circle’s TANGENT." (my emphasis, so you can see where modern theory disagrees with Descartes)

The article also says: "If, for example, God removed the matter within a vessel (such that nothing remained), then the sides of the vessel would immediately become contiguous (but not through motion)". It is not through motion because Descartes had what he called the “first preparation for motion”. This is the center of his vortex theory of the universe, which for him acts as a unified mechanical whole. He didn't believe time existed outside us, so there are simply the turnings of the wheels, going back to the first motions. He didn't believe you can prove there is a God from nature. Nature simply works like a clock, and as for clocks (which he loved), they don't delineate anything that is outside our own brains

You are unable to furnish an example of a natural pattern that wouldn’t have a generative process behind it. Case closed. — apokrisis

Which turtle do you want to focus on?

I read half the Stanford article on Descartes Physics. This below is the important stuff so far. I have three more sections I will read tomorrow (I got tired tonight):

"Descartes explicitly deems motion to be a 'mode' of extension". author

"Foremost among the achievements of Descartes’ physics are the three laws of nature (which, essentially, are laws of bodily motion). Newton’s own laws of motion would be modeled on this Cartesian breakthrough" author

Descartes "incorrectly regards (uniform, non-accelerating) motion and rest as different bodily states, whereas modern theory dictates that they are the same state." author

"Descartes insists that the quantity conserved in collisions equals the combined sum of the products of size and speed of each impacting body." author

"a body which is at rest puts up more resistance to high speed than to low speed; and this increases in proportion to the differences in the speeds." Descartes

"change is always the least that may occur." Descartes. Therefore the author says "a body’s determination is apparently linked to its magnitude of speed."

"In his Optics, published in 1637, Descartes’ derivation of his law of refraction seemingly endorses this interpretation of determinations. If a ball is propelled downwards from left to right at a 45 degree angle, and then pierces a thin linen sheet, it will continue to move to the right after piercing the sheet but now at an angle nearly parallel with the horizon. Descartes reasons that this modification of direction (from the 45 degree angle to a smaller angle) is the net result of a reduction in the ball’s downward determination through collision with the sheet, 'while the one [determination] which was making the ball tend to the right must always remain the same as it was, because the sheet offers no opposition at all to the determination in this direction'"

at least after a few decades when the new ideas start to sink in! — fishfry

Lol, true. It actually says in the first paragraph of the Stanford article "It is this unique amalgam of both old and new concepts of the physical world that may account for the current revival of scholarly interest in Descartes’ physics."

Can you supply me with a single example of a pattern in nature for which it is scientifically accepted it has no generating process? — apokrisis

I just corrected the grammatical errors in my last post

Anyway, you proposed a generator. That word means a person who generates. Then you say "find something in nature that you can't go deeper into". Uh, where is this going? We see patterns. They might go on forever (no in time, but in space). That doesn't mean there is a patterner, a causer, or a generator. You need desperately to put down the Aristotle and read some Freud on religion

I'll be upfront. I don't like Aristotelians. They claim to everyone they can prove that personhood is beyond this universe that is not embodied HERE. No way to do that.. The opposite can be proven

1) The world must reflect God
2) yet theodicy says God can't resolve the human condition without allowing pain, forcing people into situations they weren't consulted about, and doing things God never did
3) God is imperfect

A stronger argument: does God make painful decisions? If he is does, then he is not all actual and in possession of all perfection. If he does not, he is inferior to a good human.

This disproves the God of Aristotle and Aquinas. Another form of God might exist, but Pluto might have a toenail. There is no knowing this with human intellect

Well that's a contradiction. I'm saying everything, physical and abstract, is both finite and infinite at the same time and this has huge consequences for geometry

deliberate — apokrisis

Nop

The presence of a pattern implies a pattern generator. — apokrisis

And nop. There is no proof there is super daddy out there, or some guy with a long beard and a long toenail. There simply isn't any evidence your mind isn't making this stuff up

2+2 is two numbers making a process. One might think of this process when they think of four. The whole subject is stupid and Kant should not have made it an issue

I'm the rhetorical foil of last resort? I'm not sure how to take that — fishfry

No way! I just tagged you because you were "openminded and pluralistic about math" in the past with me

If Descartes's vortices are coming back that would be great news. Have you a specific link please? — fishfry

I only read it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Descartes Physics. It said people are having renewed interest in it. I watched a video once that showed how his definitions of forces and reactions couldn't work on a billiard table. The guy said he had another video on Descartes "flawed" optics, but I couldn't find it and even the first video isn't around anymore. Sad

I do not believe that "two plus two" and "four" refer to the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Kant said the same thing :) Synthetic vs analytic

Do you recognize that scientists, in their scientific endeavours, regularly employ metaphysical principles? — Metaphysician Undercover

They most certainly do

saying that "2+2" and "4" refer to the very same thing, you make a metaphysical (ontological) claim. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's a psychological claim

On no, I have more to say. I feel like math lovers have so many equations in their heads that they can't see obvious contradictions at times. Take Gabriel's horn. Obviously the surface area can't be infinite while what it contains is finite. That's just stupid. But this is taught as reality in calculus class. Does it not occur to them that pi (volume within the horn) is not finite, but infinite? Taking this to Euclid, if you have a segment one inch long, it is one inch long. But wait, bend it into a circle and its a product of pi says Euclid. Pi is endless. So Zeno was right.

There is a limit to how many equations someone can balance. I barely keep the number 1 in my head and ponder 1+1=2 from time to time. Maybe I have the right angle to see the paradox in all this

I wasn't surprised when I watched Vsauces video specifically on Banach-Tarski, because it is just the conclusion to be drawn from Zeno. Kants second antimony is literally Zenos paradox. Kant considered it unanswerable. Ye I know there has been a lot of work done in math since Kant. I've only taken a semester of pre-calculus and that was in senior high school. It's mind boggling to me that something so simple as space and motion can only be explained by high level mathematics. I don't understand the way calculus moves. I understand space and motion, but Zeno has permanently scarred my relationship with them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUnNaQTfZE

That video is good because he is smart and has great visuals on this. I don't see how someone can watch these 20 minutes and not recognize a paradox in space itself