Page 3 of 3

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:04 am
by surreptitious57
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Can you prove that there is an object that has a real ultimate length?

How can you when there is no option but to run into the problem of infinity?

No matter how much you zoom into an object it is always logically possible to zoom into it further

Any object will have a real ultimate length but it may not be possible to measure it with absolute accuracy

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:02 am
by Magnus Anderson
surreptitious57 wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Can you prove that there is an object that has a real ultimate length?

How can you when there is no option but to run into the problem of infinity?

No matter how much you zoom into an object it is always logically possible to zoom into it further.

Any object will have a real ultimate length but it may not be possible to measure it with absolute accuracy


What you have to do is to show to me that ultimate reality, such as ultimate dimensions of an object, can be sensed and not merely imagined.

Do you know the difference between sensation and imagination?

When you see, with your own eyes, an apple on a table, that is sensation.

When you imagine in your head an apple on a table, that is imagination.

When you imagine there is an apple on a table, that is projected imagination.

Projected imagination can be a random guess, or a guess based on personal preference, but it can also be an educated guess, which is a guess based on experience.

Whatever its from, imagination can never be anything more than imagination. It can never become sensation.

This is where language can confuse us.

In everyday parlance, the word reality is used to refer to BOTH what is sensed and what is not sensed but is imagined based on experience.

We say "there is a tree in our backyard" both when we are looking at it and when we are not looking at it but can expect it to be there based on our prior observations.

When one and the same word is associated with two distinct concepts, one must be careful not to conflate the concepts.

Senses and intellect are not equal.
Senses are fundamental.

Though predictions must refer to some sensory event in time, theoretical constructs need not. They can be as imaginary as you want them to be.

If you want to believe that every event in the universe is determined by some supreme being, that is fine, so as long you admit that it's nothing more than imagination (that is not projected and that is thus without implications and beyond testing.)

The problem begins when you confuse theoretical constructs with reality.

When you fail to understand that things such as ultimate objects (or objects-in-themselves), causality, laws, etc are theoretical constructs and not reality itself.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:07 am
by James S Saint
Thinking people use far more than mere sensations.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:12 am
by Magnus Anderson
They use far more sensations. Thanks to their memory.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:25 pm
by surreptitious57
Magnus Anderson wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Can you prove that there is an object that has a real ultimate length?

How can you when there is no option but to run into the problem of infinity?

No matter how much you zoom into an object it is always logically possible to zoom into it further

Any object will have a real ultimate length but it may not be possible to measure it with absolute accuracy

What you have to do is to show to me that ultimate reality such as ultimate dimensions of an object can be sensed and not merely imagined

No can do since there is no such thing as ultimate reality just reality

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:00 am
by Magnus Anderson
Okay. But just a post ago you said that there is such a thing as ultimate length of an object. Won't that be a contradiction? Unless, somehow, ultimate length is not an aspect of ultimate reality.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:14 pm
by surreptitious57
The ultimate length of an object means the precise measurement of it. This is impossible to know if it is an infinite real number. Saying reality
is not ultimate does not contradict this for the word is being employed in a different context there. And so reality is all that exists. There is no
single part of it that is ultimate. What criteria would be employed to differentiate between the ultimate and non ultimate? The answer is none

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:17 pm
by Magnus Anderson
You say that an object may have an ultimate length but that it is impossible to know it.

I don't know why you say may. Anything may. For example, God may exist. The real question is not whether it may or may not exist -- a non-issue since anything may exist -- but whether you think it does or does not exist.

More importantly, in order to speak of something existing or not, that something must be something to which the word existence can be applied: it must be some projected sensory event. If it is not, if it is merely projected imagination, then it makes little sense to speak of it existing or not.

You can use words any way you like. You can attach the word existence to anything you want. But the underlying concept remains the same: it's either a projected sensory event or not.

In order to so much as be able to discuss whether God exists or not, the word God must be a reference to some sensory event. If it is not, then it's merely imaginary, and as such, it makes no sense to speak of its existence other than in imaginary terms.

The concept of ultimate length, for example, does not refer to any sensory event.

What does ultimate length mean after all?

It means that at every point in time, an object has definite length. This means that if you freeze time and zoom into the object for infinity, you would eventually reach a point where the measurement of its length would stop changing. That final measurement would be definite length.

In reality, we can neither freeze time nor zoom into an object for infinity. Thus, definite length cannot be sensed -- it's not a sensory event.

Ultimate length is an aspect of ultimate reality. There are many other aspects of it: ultimate volume, ultimate mass, ultimate shape, etc. If you believe in ultimate anything, then you believe in ultimate reality.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:36 pm
by James S Saint
Magnus Anderson wrote:in order to speak of something existing or not, that something must be something to which the word existence can be applied: it must be some projected sensory event. If it is not, if it is merely projected imagination, then it makes little sense to speak of it existing or not.

In order to exist, it must affect something.

Magnus Anderson wrote:You can use words any way you like. You can attach the word existence to anything you want.

Not without suffering the consequences.

Magnus Anderson wrote:What does ultimate length mean after all?

It means that at every point in time, an object has definite length. This means that if you freeze time and zoom into the object for infinity, you would eventually reach a point where the measurement of its length would stop changing. That final measurement would be definite length.

If you, the observer, is occupying the exact same density of space as an object, the length will remain exactly the same.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:41 pm
by Magnus Anderson
You are stuck in the abstract, the imaginary, the auxiliary. There is no hope for you.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:51 pm
by James S Saint
Magnus Anderson wrote:You are stuck in the abstract, the imaginary, the auxiliary. There is no hope for you.

How imaginative of you.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:58 pm
by Magnus Anderson
You are a retard who refuses to accept the fact that theories are built on top of sensory information and that there is absolutely nothing limiting the sequence in which sensory events unfold.

You insist on conflating different concepts of existence by reducing everything to the theoretical construct that is affectance.

Never will you admit that what ultimately matters is predictions and whether they turn out to be true or not.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:02 pm
by James S Saint
Magnus Anderson wrote:theories are built on top of sensory information and that there is absolutely nothing limiting the sequence in which sensory events unfold.

How can it yield "sensory information" if it doesn't affect anything?

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:16 pm
by Uccisore
Venture wrote:1) What is 0?
How can we come to knowing or signifying 0? Is it not circular and facetious to represent "nothing" as presence?

2) Perpetual limitation
It is impossible to quantifying everything, and having a limited perspective is not transcended, nor is it ever transcended, by ways of analytic propositions and maths.


I don't know what you're talking about with the chaos bit, but I can answer these, because they have the same answer. You seem to be underestimating the power of language. A thing does not have to be precisely defined or quantified in order for somebody to make use (even fairly detailed use) of a symbol for it. Think about all the things poets said about the sun throughout the ages without having a clue what it actually is. That's how 'everything' works. You can make logical statements about everything without knowing what everything consists of very easily. The definition "All things that exist" works well with everything, and you certainly don't need to reference a complete list of what qualifies in order to understand the definition, or to go on to make statements around it.

Zero is just a way of signifying that there is nothing in a spot where something could have been. So for example in the number .505. it's not equal to .55. Something needs to go between the fives to indicate the concept of a 'hundredths' position despite the fact that there's nothing in that position. Note also that some people would write out 0.505, but it's often skipped because it doesn't signify anything that isn't already indicated by the decimal point.

You'll find this pattern in non-mathematical speech, too. If somebody takes the time to tell you that they don't have something (or have zero of something), it's because they they expected to have it or thought they should have it, so that specific lack is significant. Nobody is going to (or can) list off all the things they lack.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:09 pm
by URUZ
Correction of mindrape currently going on here:

In order to affect, it must exist. Not the other way around.

Existence is the most basic rational postulate. Qualifying existence comes subsequent to that postulate as such, period.

Proceed.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:53 am
by James S Saint
Wyld wrote:Correction of mindrape currently going on here:

In order to affect, it must exist. Not the other way around.

Existence is the most basic rational postulate.

Only if you are trying to avoid the question.

    Does that tree produce the apple fruit?
    Or is the apple fruit produced by that tree?

    Is that color red?
    Or is red that color?
The question is, "What does it mean to exist?",
not "What is required to affect?"

    To exist means the potential to affect something.
    To affect means to, in some at least slight way, change something.
And even more precisely, the question is "What does it take to cause perception?" And the answer is that something must be affected such as to reach the observer.

Can something be observed if that something affects nothing? Can anything exist without the potential to affect anything? If you can think of any such thing, do tell.

If you don't want to know what "to exist" means and keep having no affect in the world, certainly continue to avoid the question with your "god of the gaps" ex nihilo presumption.

And if you want to be "mindraped" less, I suggest to stop mindraping yourself.

Wyld wrote:Proceed.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:33 am
by URUZ
"To exist means the potential to affect something.
To affect means to, in some at least slight way, change something."

Some nice Orwellian double-think going on here.


If something exists, then it must affect something else. "Affecting something else" is a qualifying condition on "existing". Existing, however, is logically basic -- it is fundamental in the pure, philosophical sense. This is ontology.

Trying to reverse that and put the cart before the horse is... mindrape, as I said.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:20 pm
by James S Saint
Wyld wrote:"To exist means the potential to affect something.
To affect means to, in some at least slight way, change something."

If something exists, then it must affect something else. "Affecting something else" is a qualifying condition on "existing". Existing, however, is logically basic -- it is fundamental in the pure, philosophical sense. This is ontology.

It is the "potential to affect something". And an ontology can begin on any level and call it "basic", which merely indicates a lack of any more basic understanding. The point to an ontology is to understand existance, not to merely presume it.

But since you wish to argue with my definition, provide a definition of "to exist" or "to be".

Wyld wrote:Trying to reverse that and put the cart before the horse is... mindrape, as I said.

And as I said, stop the intellectual masturbating and you wont have that problem.

Re: Analytic Truth-Value

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:59 pm
by Ecmandu
You can't detect an existent if it never affects something. The potential to affect something doesn't make an existent.