Anomaly654 wrote: I seem to recall you taking issue with me in another thread when I stated that everyone has a different reality, but suspect you didn't grasp what I meant. Individual realities are created by subjectivity; but all individual realities draw from a single, overarching reality/existence. This is a realist, not idealist, position.
That is an abuse, an incorrect use, of the word "reality". The word "reality" refers ONLY to that which is
objective, not subjective. You have substituted "my perspective" with "my reality", forming a fictitious entity posing as a real entity ("my reality").
Anomaly654 wrote:We each have our own subjective view of reality which creates the reality [worldview] we operate within.
Yes, the "subjective views
of reality" (not the "individual realities") create the
belief system within which we operate. They do not create the reality, merely a part of that overall reality, the beliefs part. You are
substituting subjective belief for reality.
Anomaly654 wrote:Call this a sub-reality.
Ask why you are calling it "reality" at all. Subjective views are NOT reality. Why are you trying to "force" the alteration of that particular word? Your change opens the gate to language manipulated magic trickery (screwing with heads to create conflict). Why empower the Devil?
Anomaly654 wrote: I don't use words to alter the meaning of "reality" from meaning "objective or absolute existence" into meaning "relative perception of existence"
You just did. When you refer to a subjective view as a reality, you imply that reality is nothing more than a subjective view, which is objectively false and an attempt to redefine what the word "reality" means.
Anomaly654 wrote: There are more concepts and ideas than there are words to signify them.
"Subjective view" or "individual perspective" works fine. There is no valid need to redefine an existing word into an insidious tool.
Anomaly654 wrote: Nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Lord knows I've been on the refusing side enough times.
And still appear to be, but yes, there is something that you
can do about that. Ask yourself
WHY YOU are
insisting on, forcing, redefining that particular word.
Anomaly654 wrote:•Value = force/energy
This is the tough one because it's most abstract and furthest from accepted word meanings. I only came to this conclusion in the last year or so. In process of peeling back layers trying to simplify and find common denominators I came to value as a component or attribute of force/energy. Didn't seem complete, and in peeling back one more layer came to believe
energy-power-dynamism-force are just words hiding, or standing in for, a single term,
value. This goes against the grain of definition and imo justifies your and others' complaints of epistemic speciousness--for this one usage.
There is a possibly confusing use of the word "value" perhaps getting in the way of rationality here. The word "value" is also used to refer to the measure of a state or condition; e.g.
the value of the variable, the meter reading value.To remove confusion, I would suggest using "measure" or "condition" instead of "value". Then you would be talking about "the force of its measure" or "its potential". And that would play coherently into physics.
Anomaly654 wrote:But this is my worldview and I'm stickin' with it. At least until something convinces me to change it. I reserve the right to alter my worldview at any time without notice.
It is your petulance concerning the
right to change the language that others use .. and toward one specific direction that I am certain you have not investigated. Again, ask WHY change those particular words in that particular direction? And why YOU? Why fight that battle? Who does it serve? Is changing the language a hidden desire of yours? Is that your goal? What is your real goal?