Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

QED its a wrap. Right?

Don't use big words until you learn to argue with logic and reason. It's embarrassing. You apparently have not understood a thing in my recent posts.

There is a difference between 'dont understand' and 'dont agree with.'

Would be cool if you answered my questions here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 44#p376844 I really want to know where you want to go with the math thing.

O.K.
Sorry that I didnt answer you. Its a very hostile environment here for me, as you warned and I expected. So I am in defensive mode. I understand that the hostility has not been coming from you, but my defensive mode has been triggered - for this I apologize.
Thank you for expressing interest in my idea and where I want to go, you will I hope agree that it had been classed as 'Bullshit' and 'epic fail' by other posters before launch, and faced with such blatent closed minded refusal to even contemplate or consider my point there seemed to me no point in posting it.
I will respond to the post you link, answer the questions therein as well as I am able, then post my maths link and where I think it leads.

I'm willing to concede that math and Brane theory could be called META physics. If you like. It kind of extends the range of physics a bit but what the hell.

So using math and Penrose's theories Justify jamest's three E's. Show me the reasoning and try to make it really connect formally.

E (where E = empirical world).

Now, there are only three possible metaphysics to associate with E:

(i) E is the totality of all that is.
(ii) E is reducible to something else (S) that is different to E. That is, S is the essence of E.
(iii) E is not the totality of all that is, so that S different to E also exists.

Regarding 'causality', logic can generate truisms for each scenario:

(i) Causality exists within E. That is, if E is the totality of all that is, then the constituent parts of E must be interacting with an order commensurate with that understood by science.
(ii) E has been caused by S (which might be a plural, at this juncture). This must be the case, because if E does not exist, except as an appearance reducible to S, there must be a reason (cause) for E.
(iii) Causality exists within E (see (i) for explanation). Alternatively, S is effecting/causing the order discerned within E.

[Little Idiot]

And wTF is "Emperical"?!?

It's not a typo, for sure, LI has repeated this word for ages, so it must be a new fucking word.

Aw fuck. I must get some coffee.

Luis, I am sorry. I understand it may be frustrating to you to read m typing.
However, I have a problem with words; its a kind of mental/brain thing.
I can learn a word today, and by this afternoon I am back to spelling or saying it wrongly as I was yesterday. I dont even notice the difference if I proof read.
This is far more frustrating for me than you, I assure you.
This is doubled by my inate laziness when it comes to cut-n-paste it all into word to spell check - this I just cant be bothered with

[Surendra Darathy]

However, I have a problem with words; its a kind of mental/brain thing.

Yeah. You have a learning disability. And assert that compensating for it will disadvantage you in some way. What a paradox! Do you think your disinclination is not an attitude? I accept your attidude, but not your obfuscation. The contention of online interlocutors that they have a learning disability or are diagnosed with Asperger's is old hat. The deficiencies of your discourse are not a result of your so-called "problem with words". Your thoughts are left incomplete.

[Little Idiot]

QED its a wrap. Right?

Don't use big words until you learn to argue with logic and reason. It's embarrassing. You apparently have not understood a thing in my recent posts.

There is a difference between 'dont understand' and 'dont agree with.'

Unfortunatly the thread is not a discussion, its just shouting arguments too and fro.

I hope the forum has better* discussions in other threads.

beter*; like where people answer each others questions, dont just dismiss each other's well intended and constructed points with a casual assertion, dont feel it essential to their cause to be rude or harsh to others, you know the type of thing...

Sorry. I see no indication that you understood anything I said. I got no response on a request for Penrose's saying that math is metaphysics either.

He didnt say this, and I didnt say he did.
He did say that he thinks reality is made of 3 interconnecting worlds; physical, mental and mathematical. But I think you saw the video I linked?

Not that any of that would change anything at all. What the hell are you claiming? Math is a new way of knowing so anything you want to claim for metaphysics is okay now?

If you want to call math a new way of knowing all you proved is that math is some cool stuff for knowing some cool things. The OP was not claiming that math had no use or grounding.

No, I am claiming that I showed maths is a way of knowing which does not depend on the emperical beause the emperical cant reach ultimate truth. If we are to do so, it isimperative that there is another way (or ways) of knowing.
Herein lies the essential difference in out positions; J team- all we've got is emperical therefore no absolute truth
A-team - we have other ways of knowing and these can and do allow ultimate truth.

I set this out infrmally in T1, T2 and T3 today.

[Little Idiot]

However, I have a problem with words; its a kind of mental/brain thing.

Yeah. You have a learning disability. And assert that compensating for it will disadvantage you in some way. What a paradox! Do you think your disinclination is not an attitude? I accept your attidude, but not your obfuscation.

Nothing complex, I just cant be arsed to spell check throw away work like this.
Obviously I do more than enough spell checking in my proffessional work.
The kids find it odd at first when I am writing 'live' on the smart-board or white board, but I am (blush) such an awsome teacher they quickly learn to work with me. It not like I spell every word wrong, maybe 5% or so, I am read-able.

[Surendra Darathy]

throw away work like this.

Well, there's an attitude. And you're entitled to it. Your effort is noted, as long as you encourage laziness in your students.

I am (blush) such an awsome teacher they quickly learn to work with me

That's what a captive audience will do. What kind of administrators hired you? Entertainers, that's who. If your command of the conceptual was revealed as being stronger than your command of the word game, I might cut you some slack. It's not been forthcoming.

[Little Idiot]

Some who dont understand Godel say 'ah you cant have absolute truth because of Godel' which is simply wrong. Do you agree with me or not?

I've eliminated almost all of your wasted effort, Little Idiot. You cannot have absolute truth because you cannot state it.

AHhh thanks for clarity!

Is Absolute Truth a statement or not! Of course it "IS, since it is a "Truth".

No it is not. Mans attempt at a statement of ultimate truth is, but the ultimate truth is not

Godel shows us how such a statement is impossible to do without contradiction.

Yes and no.
No; He shows how it is impossible in a formal symbolic language. English is not a formal symbolic language. Go read up on it before making such silly claims, or I can explain it to you if you like - once you are prepared to stop asserting BS and listen before deciding.
However Yes, it is impossible in positive language (ie not 'timeless', which is negative) to make a fully accurate staement of ultimate truth in human language. This is a bit like the uncertainty principle in physics, it doesnt stop us saying some things in positive language but not all things at once.
We can describe 'a facet at a time, but not the whole gem at once'

Therefore, either contradiction is allowed or AT doesn't exist.

If contradiction is allowed, such statement becomes meaningless.

Fucking QED.

The truth is not self contradictory, human statements of it are incomplete and may be contadictory.
given A or B, IT is symultaneously
A not B,
B not A
Both A and B
neither A nor B

It is the human statement which can only encompass any one or two of the options at once, always having the opposite option(s) available as an apparent contradiction.
The physics theory of duality (e.g. wave particle duality) moves towards this understanding.
Thuse could do a better description.
BTW where is Thuse?

[Little Idiot]

@ SoS and anyone else interested
My 'maths post'

I proved and demonstrated once already that mathematical knowledge exists without dependence on the empirical, you failed to dispute that point as I recall, please feel free to refer me to the post where you did dispute that point, if I missed it or if I am in error - as I may be, having but the intellect of a human.
<sniggers at the fools who think intellect is measure in volume terms, such as 'planet size'>

DISCLAIMER 'beyond*' and 'start*' are spatial and temporal term applied out side the space-time domain for suggestion of meaning - this does not suggest that I am ignorant of the inappropriate use of these terms, they are used for simplicity and for the purpose of suggestive communication only.

Assuming you can not disprove my earlier proof - in maths we do have proofs of course, assuming you can not dismiss my argument; then I have shown, and Penrose agrees (he's a mathematician, physicist and a lot smarter than anyone here even 'the planet' ) - I suggest tentatively along with the vast majority of the academic maths community - that maths describes an existence and a reality beyond the empirical.

The fact that it is possible to construct mathematical models as Penrose (which may or may not be accurate – that’s not the point at this stage) does in the clip I link below of 'beyond*' the 'start*' of our space-time, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that?

Not only does it prove mathematics can exist outside space time, it proves the principle of a human inside space-time discovering knowledge about 'beyond*' space-time, and I am happy to say it is empirically testable - we can in principle test the current physical world for traces of the previous one; he uses the analogy of looking at the ripples on a pond AFTER the rain stops to figure out where each rain drop fell.

Sorry for over editorializing the clip, but it makes me think; 'FUCK FUCK FUCK! that’s Fucking awsome.'
Note; I never swear - when did I last swear on the forum? and the fact that I did so 4 times here doesn’t even begin to show how Fucking awesome that is.

Anyway I thought I'd share the link with you guys, now, honest answer please; doesnt that make you think the same?
(see how I give you an easy opener for a counter attack? I dont give a #0($ )

The fact that it destroys your J team's petty argument (that we need the emperical to get knowledge, that metaphysics is invalid because all knowledge depends on the physical etc.) is trivial compared to what it actually really means.

What it means is that we have a verifiable way of knowing if there have been previous universes.
Also it means we have at least one way of knowing not dependent upon the emperical, which is good as we agree emperical method cant find Truth.

[Little Idiot]

throw away work like this.

Well, there's an attitude. And you're entitled to it. Your effort is noted, as long as you encourage laziness in your students.

Actually I do the opposite. I show what can be achieved despite difficulty, I motivate.

I am (blush) such an awsome teacher they quickly learn to work with me

That's what a captive audience will do. What kind of administrators hired you? Entertainers, that's who. If your command of the conceptual was revealed as being stronger than your command of the word game, I might cut you some slack. It's not been forthcoming.

Well, thinking in a different frame of reference to you doesnot mean I am lower on the conceptual comtinuum.
My real thinking doesnt even come down here very much; mentalism starts from idealism and goes on from there. Were still in philosophy 101 'It seems too hard to believe but what if the world really was a mental creation?"
You see my subjective proof is not open to you unless you are prepared to consider this question and apply the experimental hypothesis it suggests to your own experimental lab. - your own life, and your own mind's potential to create change.
What is it that stops you bending the spoon? Is it the nature of spoons not to bend, or is it the nature of you not to bend the spoons?
Have you tried to bend the spoon, or you just know; spoons dont bend, therefore no need to try and check?

[SpeedOfSound]

He didnt say this, and I didnt say he did.
He did say that he thinks reality is made of 3 interconnecting worlds; physical, mental and mathematical. But I think you saw the video I linked?

No I couldn't find it.

[Little Idiot]

Darn, I will post the link, gotta do some stuff first. there are 2 clips, the one in my last post 'the maths post' above (about maths outside space time and the model of cyclic universe) and one a couple of days ago where he talks about whats real - physical menatal and mathematical.
<Think 'BM' as the holder of all 3 if you can - thats what I experience when I see the clip.>

[Little Idiot]

He didnt say this, and I didnt say he did.
He did say that he thinks reality is made of 3 interconnecting worlds; physical, mental and mathematical. But I think you saw the video I linked?

No I couldn't find it.

Here is the first clip I have been refering to, where penrose describes his 'tri-ism' its called 'What Things Really Exist' link

[Little Idiot]

However, I have a problem with words; its a kind of mental/brain thing.

fnnuy tinhg is as lnog as the frsit and lsat ltter are in the rhgit pcale, and lnog wrdos are not too mxied up its not hrad to raed. Enlgsih tchears hvae to be tinaerd to sopt eorrrs as our 'bairn' or mnid sotrs wrods atuoamitlcy. We can eevn dael wtih the odd mtaissek!
Not a lot of ppolee konw taht.

[newolder]

... Enldsih tchears hvae to be tinaerd to sopt eorrrs as our 'bairn' or mnid sotrs wrods atuoamitlcy.

In a real brain, sorting costs. Sorting idiocy costs more – even in a “mind” mythological.

Also it means we have at least one way of knowing not dependent upon the emperical, which is good as we agree emperical method cant find Truth.

What is emperical? What is “cant” (a mis-spelling of Kundt, or what?) and “Truth”? It's not that you cannot find your own blind-spot, or is it?

[Kenny Login]

Scientists plainly separate the presentation of their data from their interpretations of it. They also present their statistical methodology, so that readers can conclude for themselves whether the presenters are doing more than simply "massaging" their data. When the data reduction is not presented clearly, as with, say, statistical summaries of purported studies of paranormal phenomena, one can easily conclude that the presenters are charlatans.

It is also plainly visible when an article contains only interpretation and no data. If you want to wibble about the definition of "data", then go ahead and wibble. It's all the same to me.

I think your statement about "most empirical programmes" is blatant prevarication. That is to say, in that statement you are talking out of your arse. If you don't understand the difference between persisting in yammering about metaphysical wibbles, and discussing data sets that have been presented with measures of their quality, well, then you don't.

There's nothing here that I disagree with (for the purposes of this thread at least). There's a reason why I'm talking about empirical programmes, rather than purely scientific programmes. Economics, social sciences etc are still valid sources of knowledge. As indeed are personal empirical programmes, although perhaps it's a terrible faux pas to say such things on this thread.

Still, a question seems to have been overlooked. So, to no one in particular...... are the gathering, presentation and interpretation of data sets free of metaphysical considerations in all, or even most, cases? Again, one area I find particularly interesting is the what cognitive science has to say about consciousness. Or neuroscience. Or psychology. Just some ideas.