On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

Love these new smilies

[Surendra Darathy]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

Love these new smilies

Au revoir, Shoshanna!

He got a fucking Oscar for stuff like that. Don't diss drama. Put it in its place. James gets the Golden Globes. AKA, brass balls.

[Surendra Darathy]

EDIT;
err, opps. Dunno how this post got here.

[jamest]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

I've had the whitewash treatment in a few threads recently, but in this thread you completely overlooked the significance of what I was saying about Zeno:

1) Certain arguments cannot be confirmed or denied via 'observation'.
2) Therefore, certain arguments transcend what can be observed... and can only be refuted by reason.
That is: reason isn't moulded and limited by, nor to, the empirical world.

Your metaphysical head should be spinning at this point.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

I've had the whitewash treatment in a few threads recently, but in this thread you completely overlooked the significance of what I was saying about Zeno:

1) Certain arguments cannot be confirmed or denied via 'observation'.
2) Therefore, certain arguments transcend what can be observed... and can only be refuted by reason.
That is: reason isn't moulded and limited by, nor to, the empirical world.

Your metaphysical head should be spinning at this point.

Why don't you start a Zeno thread, jamest? You keep inviting others to. Go fire one up. There is no approval needed here - we are all very excited about that.

[jamest]

Why don't you start a Zeno thread, jamest? You keep inviting others to. Go fire one up. There is no approval needed here - we are all very excited about that.

Okay, maybe later. Though I wanted someone else to start it and present the case for Zeno's refutation. It's my intention to show why this refutation is flawed... and I'll be doing so using [some] logic that Zeno himself did not employ.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why don't you start a Zeno thread, jamest? You keep inviting others to. Go fire one up. There is no approval needed here - we are all very excited about that.

Okay, maybe later. Though I wanted someone else to start it and present the case for Zeno's refutation. It's my intention to show why this refutation is flawed... and I'll be doing so using [some] logic that Zeno himself did not employ.

Just start a thread with descriptions of Zeno's main paradoxes and take it from there.

[GrahamH]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

I've had the whitewash treatment in a few threads recently, but in this thread you completely overlooked the significance of what I was saying about Zeno:

1) Certain arguments cannot be confirmed or denied via 'observation'.
2) Therefore, certain arguments transcend what can be observed... and can only be refuted by reason.
That is: reason isn't moulded and limited by, nor to, the empirical world.

Your metaphysical head should be spinning at this point.

You seem to have this in reverse.

Some empirically based axioms are defined and used in a abstract construction. The result seems to conflict with the empirical basis and is termed a paradox. Further work with the abstract construction exposes the problem created from gaps in the mathematical methodology.

There was never a paradox. Zeno tried to manipulate infinite series do calculus without knowing how to frame rules and define axioms to make sense of it. Once calculu was formulated to make sense of its the method was realised it revealed that there was no paradox.

The maths derived from empirically apprehended axioms then produced a result in agreement with the empirical basis.

In summary, if a problem is created by using an incomplete set of rules then it can be fixed by extending the rules. A case of 'you created the problem, you fix it.'

edited for erroneous references to calculus, which is not required to refute the paradox.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Zeno's arrow paradox claims that an arrow cannot ever hit the target because it first must travel half of the distance, then half of the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance, etc. He claimed that since there were an infinite series of steps, the arrow would never complete the journey.

What he had actually done, in stating the paradox, was to claim that an infinite series cannot have a sum. Specifically, this series.



Here is a simple proof that the series does in fact converge.

Let S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

So 2S = 2(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....)

2S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

But, if we discard the first term, this is just S.

So

2S = 1 + S

2S - S = 1

S = 1

Thus the sum of the infinite series is 1. No calculus needed. Zeno lacked the technique to do this, as did anyone at that time - but it is hardly rocket-science once you spot the trick! Had it been explained to Zeno, he would certainly have been able to follow the logic.

[GrahamH]

...

Thus the sum of the infinite series is 1. No calculus needed. Zeno lacked the technique to do this, as did anyone at that time - but it is hardly rocket-science once you spot the trick! Had it been explained to Zeno, he would certainly have been able to follow the logic.

[jamest]

Zeno's arrow paradox claims that an arrow cannot ever hit the target because it first must travel half of the distance, then half of the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance, etc. He claimed that since there were an infinite series of steps, the arrow would never complete the journey.

What he had actually done, in stating the paradox, was to claim that an infinite series cannot have a sum. Specifically, this series.



Here is a simple proof that the series does in fact converge.

Let S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

So 2S = 2(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....)

2S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

But, if we discard the first term, this is just S.

So

2S = 1 + S

2S - S = 1

S = 1

Thus the sum of the infinite series is 1. No calculus needed. Zeno lacked the technique to do this, as did anyone at that time - but it is hardly rocket-science once you spot the trick! Had it been explained to Zeno, he would certainly have been able to follow the logic.

Unless you object, I'll use this as the basis of Zeno's refutation, later. It saves me doing the donkey work.

[SpeedOfSound]

Unless you object, I'll use this as the basis of Zeno's refutation, later. It saves me doing the donkey work.

Only you can do the true donkey work james.

[Little Idiot]

<snip>

If we can use our powers for gaining knowledge to show what reality can not be, as I did show your alternative axiom 1 to be self contradictory, we can deduce from what is left what reality can be.

Remember, the 'goal' here is only to formulate the highest possible statement about absolute reality possible in human language.
Knowing what it is not is an early step on the way.
If it turns out to be
"absolute reality is not X, Y, Z but it either A or B" then thats it.

However, given this goal, it is an achieveable goal.

You have already said you don't consider that logic applies to reality and the logic which does apply within existence. Since you exist and apply logic (sometimes erroneously) you are not making any reference to reality in doing so, by your own axioms!

Thats not the case at all. I said logic can not apply 'within reality' but logic obviously can be applied within space time. It is not contrary to use logic about reality from within space time.

Saying what something is not could play a role in finding out what it is, if what remains is known. I could say 'An oglifrack is not as small as a mouse'. Since that leaves known possible sizes larger than a mouse I may have said something about oglifracks. If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements together, while being logically consistent, say nothing about oglifracks.[edit]If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements are logically consistent but the first stamenent says nothing about oglifracks[/edit].

I assume you are attempting to mock my point. But the point is good, and already has proven that certain ideas of what is reality are wrong. One common example being 'the totality of the cosmos' which is ruled out of a claim as absolute reality because it changes.

Indeed, your alternative axiom 1 did not last long, and I note you did not bother to try resurect it from the stake of certainty which I plunged through it's meatphysical heart.
The fact is, Graham and SD, you may mock as you wish, but tangeable knowledge has been produced on the nature of reality, despite the unwillingness of you both to contribute to metaphysics.

You do see the point, I hope; your hypothesis 'alternative axiom 1' seemed like a viable alternative axiom, because from your perspective we are not under any limits of what we can say in metaphysics about reality, but in fact we are under very tight constraints of what we can say about reality.
It is true, that metaphysical speculation about mundane things can be a long dry and hollow event. But it is equally true that knowledge of absolute reality can be established, and has been established in this thread infront of your eyes.

Can you refute my axiom 1?
No. If you can, do. If you dont, then you cant.
Can you refute my deductions of reality this far?
No.
Do you have any grounds against my claim thus far apart from personal disbelief from prior bais?
No.
Can my model dismiss lesser models?
Yes. 'Alternative axiom 1' did not last long.
Has my hypothesis shown predictive power?
Yes - I could dismiss as un-demonstrated certain claims made by SoS in a field of which I have no knowledge using the model.

I accept that my alternative axiom 1 was dubious, but that is beside the point.
The point was not to argue for that, but to challenge you to consider what other axioms might seem valid given complete abandonment of empiricism. What basis is there for establishing absolutely true axioms? WHat would that even mean. If there is no method of doing that then what knowledge of reality can be gained from untrue axioms?

I dont suggest a complete abandonment of empiricism, just an abandonment of the idea that only empiricism can provide knowledge.
I do not suggest a complete abandonment of reason, any axiom must still be true, and reason can show us some untrue axioms.
What did I use to show alternative axiom 1 untrue? It wasnt empirical, was it?
I dont suggest axioms have to be absolutly true, because I dont think we know yet what that would mean. I just suggest they need to be true, if they are to produce knowledge.

How can you tell if your concept says anything about reality?

Your axiom 1 has to answer what 'changeless' means. Is it persisting through time without varying?

Changeless means beyond the possibility of change. This is not persisting through time without change, because even if that were possible, we would need to prove that there was no beginning of time (or there would be change at the start of time) and we would have to prove there will not be an end to time for the same reason (there would be a change at the end of time).

You should also try to define what a reality that doesn't exist might mean.

No need. Since exist and reality are distinct and different.

Your axiom doesn't seem to amount to much.

No, axioms never do. They should be so simple as to need no explaination. Its not the axioms, its what you build with them that counts, that amounts to something.

You have major problem in arguing that logic doesn't apply to reality, then trying to apply it!

No, I have explained this already. Even in your quote above I repeat this point -
"I said logic can not apply 'within reality' but logic obviously can be applied within space time. It is not contrary to use logic about reality from within space time."
Let me try another angle; I am using logic in existence to work logically what we can and can not say here in existence about reality which is not 'a thing in existence.' Logic does not apply 'in reality' but I am using it 'in existence.' Your inability to assign different meanings to the two words seems to be the source of your confusion on this point.

Suppose that the laws of logic we know apply only in our local part of infinity. We would make sound logical arguments without any possibility of realising that in some other parts of infinity entirely different rules apply. We only assume that local rules are universal rules because we observe the same principles at work wherever we look, but that is empirical induction.

I suggest there is no logical argument possible that could establish that A = A throughout all existence (multiple universes, astral planes, layers of mind, nested simulations or whatever). You cannot show this since A=A is only an axiom apprehended from experience.

I need not concerm myself with all of any and all possible multiverse(s), because I am using logic here in our space-time existence. As long as the logic is sound here in our space time it will surfice for my purpose. I repeat, I am using logic here in space time, to determine what can be said here in space time with our linguistic understanding of space and time. I am not suggesting a new language and thought method be applied in reality; all words and thinking are here in our space-time.

[Little Idiot]

Zeno's arrow paradox claims that an arrow cannot ever hit the target because it first must travel half of the distance, then half of the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance, etc. He claimed that since there were an infinite series of steps, the arrow would never complete the journey.

What he had actually done, in stating the paradox, was to claim that an infinite series cannot have a sum. Specifically, this series.



Here is a simple proof that the series does in fact converge.

Let S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

So 2S = 2(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....)

2S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ....

But, if we discard the first term, this is just S.

So

2S = 1 + S

2S - S = 1

S = 1

Thus the sum of the infinite series is 1. No calculus needed. Zeno lacked the technique to do this, as did anyone at that time - but it is hardly rocket-science once you spot the trick! Had it been explained to Zeno, he would certainly have been able to follow the logic.

Unless you object, I'll use this as the basis of Zeno's refutation, later. It saves me doing the donkey work.

Now that I would like to see. I am not suggesting it cant be done (which would be an argument from ignorance) but I am saying that I will be very impressed to see it, as I can not currently see how it could be done. I look forward to it.
I have my smilie ready.

[GrahamH]

<snip>

I need not concerm myself with all of any and all possible multiverse(s), because I am using logic here in our space-time existence. As long as the logic is sound here in our space time it will surfice for my purpose. I repeat, I am using logic here in space time, to determine what can be said here in space time with our linguistic understanding of space and time. I am not suggesting a new language and thought method be applied in reality; all words and thinking are here in our space-time.

Ah, I thought you were trying to talk about reality, but perhaps you mean nothing can be said about reality. Instead you are talking about existence, 'in our space-time', which is not real, but exists.

So, within any particular existence it is valid to use logic to talk about things within that existence. OK
I assume you will be using empirical observation to formulate your axioms. Will you bother to test any theories, or will you go with your 'other way of knowing'?
It seems nothing can be said about that which might be real but not exist here.
It seems nothing can be said about any 'other existence' not 'in our space-time'.

Is that your position?