Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Just as logic is not aware that it exists, but we can apprehend it, logic is not sentient, we are, numbers are not properties of sentience, they however can be apprehended by sentient beings.

One of the platonic forms, which we can all demonstrate is the field of imaginary, we can have the field of the platonic form of a real tree or the field of an imaginary tree.

Thoughts are electrochemical signals occurring in the brain so they are physical
The thing that is being thought of however is not physical but merely imaginary

That means “thoughts being electrochemical signals in the brain” is also imaginary, based on that logic.

Like I said, it’s a struggle to extract what you’re actually talking about - the title of the thread is whether any of us still doubt you about platonic forms and I was giving you reasoning to doubt platonic forms.

Now you’re telling me I didn’t talk about what you were speaking about… - was I not thus approaching your thoughts logically? :-k

1)i) Sticks in space and time
ii) Sticks can be observed individually as different events
iii) These different events can be differentiated as one, then two, then three, then four
iv) These numbered events are not the sticks themselves in space and time
v) The classifications of one, two, three and four can be used generally for not just sticks
vi) Oneness, twoness, threeness and fourness are not bound specifically to that which they denote in space and time
2) One, two, three and four (and all numbers in general) themselves do not have the same reality as sticks in space and time
3) If numbers don’t have spatio-temporal reality like sticks, they exist outside space and time

There’s presumably at least this number of layers to the abstraction of something such as numbers into Platonic forms. Don’t think the “logic” isn’t apparent to those who see a problem with it - and by all means we should respect it in its historical context as brilliant for the time.

I bring up Nietzsche because he truly brings philosophy back in touch with its physiological origins, psychologising in these terms only to diagnose the mentality of inverting reality with the imaginary. This is what Plato did when he proposed “an eternal realm that doesn’t begin or end”, and the added sense of “means, motive, and opportunity” really puts into perspective the musings about whether such a conclusion is valid.

In terms only of the validity of the conclusion, looking at the logical progression that I reeled off above from the top of my head, I think it’s something that goes on at around 1)vi)
There has to be a sleight of hand performed at some point that removes “the general” from the embedded reality of “the specific”.
Only then can you jump to a notion of “the essence” of numbers as removed from space and time, and thus conclude that they exist outside of space and time.

Allow me to put the whole process in real terms - are you ready?

Numbers and any words that “denote” a real, tangible, physical thing are in themselves real, tangible and physical. On the surface they are a sound, a visual symbol, a tactile impulse such as with braille and so forth. They are a sensation of a specific codified type that is not the same things as that which they denote, but which is much easier to deal with and more compact - e.g. you can write about a whole world in something as portable as a book. But “underneath the hood”, the brain is merely reinforcing (myelinating) neural pathways that occur more often, such as the one that connects “the signified” and “the signifier”. This is why kids love asking “what’s that?” constantly - they are myelinating together their reality with the code of language. “One” stick ends up lighting up similarly to “one” stone, and so forth, until the sensation of “oneness” in your mind is consolidated into its own neural pathway in and of itself - without necessarily applying to something in particular. That’s how the brain works: association.

Thus numbers are entirely real as a chemical response that feels like “recognition”, with or without a code (e.g. the written symbol “1”) that “signifies” something “signified” such as a single stick.

The error in thinking is the conception of reality as the “signified” as separate from the “signifier”, which by black-and-white contrast can be lumped into “not reality”. Perception occurs in the brain, not in the eyes and ears etc. and “stick” and “one” are not one bit different in this respect. Given this fact, Plato et al. need only re-conceive what reality is - except “tragically” they did not have access to the scientific knowledge that we have today.

Your way is not the shortcut.

1.) Something cannot come from nothing
2.) If something comes from something else, it’s first substantiation still solves as it coming from nothing, unless there is a way in which it has always been there

What this does is put a force on platonic forms, or rather, eternal forms, without which, everything is concluded to come from nothing. Nothing at all isn’t there for anything to come from, so this possibility and the possibility of something coming from something else are out. The thing must come from the thing itself. The best theory for this is that the thing itself occupies many different dimensions at once; one of them being eternal.

My way isn’t a shortcut at all, it just keeps things within the realm of what’s testable with complete sufficiency.

Your way tries to be a shortcut by casting away answers to some other untestable realm. “The answers are there, but out of your reach to disprove them” - how convenient. And says who? Why should we believe you when they’re just as inaccessible to you? You only say they logically must be because they’re there but not here. Firstly, that isn’t a necessary logical sequitur, and secondly I showed you why they are here after all, you just need to change your perspective to something that better fits the reality of our own testable realm. 2000 years of thought and searching can do that to old ideas, smart as they appeared to be in their own time.

“Something cannot come from nothing”
Obviously eternal forms are supposed to be “something” just as much as the “apparent world”, and the proposition is that neither can come from nothing.
“Something can come from something”
This is intended to apply to the “apparent world”, but not “eternal forms”. Eternal forms are supposed to render the proposition invalid: “comes from” doesn’t apply to it. They neither “come from” something nor nothing, they always were.
The implication is that the apparent world has to come from “somewhere” (supposedly from eternal forms), but why do eternal forms escape the validity of the question but the apparent world does not?

If the apparent world was eternal, then “something cannot come from nothing” is equally invalid to say about it as it is to eternal forms.

An alternative is that “comes from” is valid not just for the apparent world.
Are eternal forms themselves something that has to come from something? Do they themselves have eternal forms? Can something come from itself? Can’t the apparent world continually unfold unto itself? That’s how it appears at least, so if it is implied that it comes from something why does it need to come from a thing that’s different to itself (e.g. eternal forms)?

So we have 3 questions:
Is “comes from” a necessity?
If so, can something “come from” itself?
If neither, what is the “something else” that something “comes from”?

You have to answer “yes for the apparent world, but no for the eternal”, “no” and “somewhere that you can’t prove it doesn’t”. That’s just 1 answer and not the “best theory” by any stretch. You have to prove the apparent world isn’t eternal for the first question, you have to prove something can’t come from itself for the second, and you have to prove that where it comes from is out of all possible things “somewhere that you can’t prove it doesn’t” - which by definition you can’t!
The better theory is that if “comes from” is a necessity, the apparent world comes from itself, continually unfolding unto itself exactly how it appears and completely within the real realms of testability.

When you put a spoon in a bowl of soup, and put it to your mouth to slurp, has the spoon always existed?
Has the soup? This is a very critical point here, if it hasn’t always existed, then it came ex nihilo.

If it has always existed, then motion cannot occur in existence, everything freezes, becomes nothing at all. Remember, this part is the world you said is verifiable and testable that comes from itself… a world that has to freeze in order for existents to not come from nothing at all, thus becoming nothing at all.

So either it comes from nothing at all, or it is nothing at all.

How do you escape this trap?

Eternal forms don’t have infinite regress…

There isn’t the spooness of the spooness of the spooness…

So that was a straw man.

Nothing by definition:isn’t

So then we’re left with eternal forms to explain the somethingness of everything.

Somewhere, to avoid contradiction, that spoon and that slurping exists outside space time in an eternal dimension.

Edited my last post.

The spoon and soup are constituted of matter/energy that have always existed, and certain configurations are recognisable as “spoon” and “soup” due to the fundamental forces holding them together in various stable ways.

Your problem is that you’re thinking in terms of labels (e.g. “spoon” and “soup”) and not the real constituent parts that merely need to reconfigure to cause the different things to exist that you can label. The labels aren’t the reality, the testable constituents are.

If two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom have always existed, they can still move relative to one another, however relatively frozen they are in their stable states, and the fundamental forces are all you need to add for the different arrangements to amount to all the multitude of sensory outcomes that we enjoy at the unassisted human level of perception and beyond.

You’re advocating the need for frozen labels for your conception to hold, and yet nothing in reality ever exactly matches these ideal forms. The forms aren’t even possible - there is no perfect spoon or soup, there’s just different arrangements of the world that are sometimes loosely but closely enough identifiable as spoon, soup etc.

There’s really no need to escape the real world in hope and wonder of a “more real” world that has all the answers. Don’t be such a Christian. Everything you need is right here if you just look a little more closely and rigorously, and like Nietzsche diagnosed, if you can’t cope without your inversion of cause and consequence, you are sick. At least Plato had the excuse of not yet knowing about modern science.

If a particle ends up somewhere that it’s never been before, causing a new substantiation of the universe as a whole, it’s the very nature of the newness, something coming from something else, that forces something coming from nothing, unless it has always existed in that state, which is also nothing, moving from soup to particles doesn’t change the unassailable logic.

Also, platonic forms are templates, not perfections.

Also, logic > science

Edited my last post to respond better to the whole post instead of part of it.

Can you edit it again? Your 8-sectioned sentence lacks clarity.

You’re saying a single particle moving to a new place is newness of all particles as a whole → this is something coming from something else which is the same as something coming from nothing → eternal states are also nothing (of which you’re arguing in favour)… and somehow this string of quite clear contradictions doesn’t change an unassailable logic?

I mean… what?! :-k

Also, if you keep having to edit your posts because you’re launching into a defense of only the first part my posts without even reading it all yet, I suggest you take a more rationed attitude to debating. The first read can be hard because it attacks your investment - that’s not the time to reply. Stand back after you’ve read it all, calm down, honestly consider the truth behind what the other person is saying, then respond with a view to the truth rather than saving your ego. Otherwise you’ll never get anywhere in debate.

I read your whole post, went to the most important part of the discussion, and then realized it was rude to not address the other two points. A whopping 5 minute delay is hardly characteristic of cherry picking.

So here’s the deal:

You either understand this concept or not:

If anything never was, but, suddenly is, it’s the same as something coming from nothing.

The argument against this is that something comes from something else, which by definition, isn’t nothing.

To which I reply, any novel construct had no precedence, coming from no precedence is the same as coming from nothing. It’s novelty is NEW. Never found before. Understand?

So once you understand this, in order for an existent, to not come from nothing, it has to have ALWAYS existed. If everything, sans, hypothetical other dimensions always exists, it freezes everything into the same state forever. Freezing everything into the same state forever is nothing at all, in this dimension.

So you need to split up dimensions where finite forms, constantly new are accessing eternal forms which are the templates of the observations…

If such eternal forms don’t exist, it forces in this dimension (if that’s all there is, as you’re arguing) to freeze or to come from nothing at all. The force, is that eternal forms (templates for existents outside space and time) need to exist in order for new stuff to not come from nothing at all (these templates aren’t nothing at all). If you remove the templates, than any new occurrence must come from nothing.

Now, remember the definition of nothing: isn’t

That is also the main reason existence exists, because nothing: isn’t.

You’ve basically been ad homing me for about 4 exchanges now, and projecting your emotionalist projection on to me. I’d appreciate if you’d stop doing that.

The problem is that I understand your position all too well and you’d do well to consider this possibility. But if you explain it in a profoundly bad way, I can’t know that you’re referring to a thing I understand.

However your latest post is just about the most coherent I’ve ever heard you, well done.

The problem of your argument is that you are thinking in terms of identity statically as a premise. So it’s no wonder you’re concluding that the universe is constituted of static forms as a result. Circular.

Is a cat that has shed a hair the same cat? Of course. Is it an entirely different cat just because the same particles moved? Of course not - this is how identity is used in practice. It’s even how YOU use identity whether you realise/admit it or not: you’re using it in this very same argument such that it isn’t a different argument every different way you formulate/phrase it or even spell it/type it from moment to moment - it’s even how you’re thinking of yourself, moving around, neurons firing, fingers pressing different keys, as the same person and not an entirely new person each time. Without a dynamic sense of identity, you wouldn’t even be you from moment to moment.

So now, is there an eternal form of “you” (or of “human” etc etc) and NOT an eternal form of a universe with a particle in a new place? You can’t have it both ways. If you’re of the same eternal form of “you” however you move, and the universe is not of the same eternal form of “universe” because a particle moved, either you admit it’s the same universe constituted of the same moving particles to achieve a different overall appearance, and your own identity stays in tact however you move, or like you’re trying to say in your point: the universe is entirely novel because something shifted, and you admit you are not yourself from moment to moment. If you do the latter (which would be sticking with your argument), then good luck continuing this argument or at all!

So we’ve shown how a universe in a new arrangement isn’t a new universe, so something e.g. particles coming together in a certain way to become recognisable as a spoon isn’t physically something coming from nothing - only the mental label being validly applied to the very first spoon is something that came from nothing. And even then, the “mental” label of spoon in “physical” sound, writing or even thought is just the same “physical” somethings moving around making the same somethings in different arrangements, but now “mentally” recognised and called something else in this moment compared to the last one.

The proven conservation of energy is just another way of saying that it was always around just in different arrangements: same universe, same something continually coming from something. There is no nothing and no imaginary and inaccessible realm needed. Do I get to say “you either understand it or not” in a patronising way too?

Ok, so now we’re starting to get on the same page.

My argument in my videos and many times in the forum have been explicit:

Identity can only possibly be a product of eternal forms.

The mind is not capable of forming identity from absolute chaos (also nothingness).

To be able to discern an object, there must be something about that object which NEVER MOVES!

That’s what an eternal form is.

Why would there be an eternal form for ‘cat’ when cats could have evolved to be completely different (or slightly different) from the cats that we see now?

It doesn’t make sense for there to be an eternal form for something that is infinitely variable.

The problem here is a black and white conception of the order of an eternal form that never moves… and everything else as absolute chaos.

It should be apparent from looking out at the world that things are happening to all sorts of degrees of relative order/chaos. A slab of rock on a cold day with no wind is relatively very orderly, where a plume of smoke on a windy day is highly chaotic - it’s all occurring on a scale that in turn occurs in many different shades and colours.
Consider why the theory of relativity was an improvement - it was because models of the world moved away from such notions as absolute time and space, and things started to be understood in relation to one another. Consider the relatively chaotic gaseous surface of the planet Jupiter that somehow produces the “Great Red Spot” that has lasted at least for hundreds of years. Another example of order emerging from chaos as a matter of course is the “Lorenz Attractor” - it is a fairly ubiquitous and even standard occurrence it seems. They are not binary opposites, real things are a continuum and they are best conceived, understood and explained as such.

Children manage to form identities from the dynamic world - sure it’s easier to mentally isolate when things are much more still, but that doesn’t mean we should ground things and restrict ourselves to the mentally easy just because that’s the easiest to understand. The mentally harder to conceive stuff still happens, but this is why the ancient Euclidean conception of geometry and the Pythagorean fealty to real and rational numbers paved way to advancements such as fractals, irrational and complex numbers. All disciplines of thought started with the simplistic and evolved away from absolutes - Plato’s “Eternal Forms” included.

A question to ponder: how do we know what motion is? What’s the eternal form for that? What is the frozen form outside of space and time for this absolute chaos of which you speak?
The problem with resorting to absolutes as the foundation of everything is that you immediately make the opposite impossible when it is clearly existent in everyone’s daily lives.

I assume the idea is that the templates are as vague as possible such as to well-enough fit all these infinite variations in a hand-wavey kind of way. I see this tendency all over the explanations of the worst ideas - that of standing back far enough until all things that would otherwise compromise such conceptions kinda meld into everything else and no longer stand out if you squint hard enough. That’s not to say the worst ideas have no validity at all, it’s easy to see where they come from, and all advancement needs to advance from somewhere. That’s why they say “the Devil” is in the detail - because all the divine elegance and simplicity of absolutes is undone by the details (and so of course it’s the fault of the details, as the Godly is defined a priori as infallible).

It can be discussed without reference to God or Christianity.

I move my head an inch.

There were an infinitity of things that occurred.

Existents cannot process infinity as aware beings, it would take forever to move my head an inch, and I or none of the constituents could exist. But they do.

Why? Because somewhere there are templates.

Perfection is simple. We see it every day as relativity.

In order to look at a beautiful tree, I must be standing at a certain distance to it. If I stand 3000 miles away, I can’t see it, if I just look at it microscopically I also can’t see it. To see it, I have to be in the “sweet spot”.

This is absolute. It’s called perceptual acuity.

Now, I really take offense, you’re still ad homming, at the idea that I’m “doing hand waving”. You even explain further that I’m a simpleton, that eternal forms aren’t badass or complex enough. They are very complex.

Your hand waving is in the form of denying that if something comes from something else, it came from nothing at all. You’ve handwaved over my novelty argument. If an existent has never had a substantiation, it came from nothing at all. I’ll put this in your terms, if an identity has never had a precedence or substantiation, and there it is, it came from nothing at all.

As for motion:

The substrate of existence holds everything, since existence is infinite, and infinities can not be counted, motion occurred as the process of existence counting itself. I give an equality: infinity = motion.

Complete babble is so effortless for you. It’s a pleasure to watch. :bow-yellow: