Also what’s the deal? Am I talking to the same person?
Its not a non answer because one is not simply a mathematical quantity
Other examples may be less concrete but that is not of relevance here
So one can be referenced from religion - science - philosophy - psychology
One God - One Universe - One Reality - One Consciousness - One Humanity
One can also be the totality of existence expressed in its simplest form
One Man!
One Mission!
One Bad Mother!
Try this one yourself. Grab a pie, an apple, a piece of cloth - any one thing.
In itself it is whole and it is itself throughout its self, united as itself.
Now cut it up. Once it’s divided into 2 or more pieces, it’s no longer “one” in unity. Instead, each slice is its own unity, separated from other slices.
Voila, you have 2 or more things instead of 1 - and you did so by means of creating a gap within unity to make discrete plurality.
Except really, for all the air bubbles etc. in pies and apples, between the strands of fabric in the cloth - there were gaps all along in these supposed “unities of consistent identity throughout themselves”?
Well, there is no gap of nothingness in between these air gaps and that which they separate.
Really there is no gap anywhere, it’s all a continuous transition throughout an unbroken unity.
Unity by derivation just means oneness. One continuous thing is not divided into 2 more or more discrete pieces: with no possible gaps it fundamentally can’t be.
Fundamentally it’s unified throughout itself: fundamental unity.
I don’t know how to explain it any better, I’m sorry.
What you say about a superstition of mathematics is exactly what “divides up” Continuous Experience into discrete experiences. It’s not the truth that it’s divisible, but it’s useful to think so e.g. maths.
But I did have an answer to your question: it is that there cannot be an answer for the very specific and important reasons that I explained.
Resistance requires discontinuity, sure. But what resistance is there, fundamentally?
The universe unfolds unto itself effortlessly, it doesn’t seem to need any help, it has no struggle nor any motive to do any differently to what it’s doing.
It’s humans who come up against resistance as soon as we attempt to manipulate existence to be different to how it is: to exert power.
You need knowledge to predict and control: you need discrete experiences to exert power.
You need to see the world differently to how it is, through these means, for resistance to be born.
Until then, there is no resistance - just effortlessness and the inevitability of becoming.
Gaps are contingent upon this artificial division of Continuous Experience into discrete experiences.
Good find.
Yes, : but how similar and enough so to set up a continua toward a sufficient lack of objection to produce an inevitable pre-empiricism?
Probably not yet, for Platonism carries a type of transcendental that adheres :-
by virtue of genealogy.
Some scholars see a gap between the existing mythical and the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th to 6th century BC) in the Greek city-states.[17] This has given rise to the phrase “Greek miracle”. But if we follow carefully the course of Anaximander’s ideas, we will notice that there was not such an abrupt break as initially appears. The basic elements of nature (water, air, fire, earth) which the first Greek philosophers believed made up the universe in fact represent the primordial forces imagined in earlier ways of thinking. Their collision produced what the mythical tradition had called cosmic harmony. In the old cosmogonies – Hesiod (8th – 7th cent.
“I don’t know how to explain it any better, I’m sorry.”
That’s alright.
“It’s not the truth that it’s divisible, but it’s useful to think so e.g. maths.”
1 is still a number.
Silhouette
“The universe unfolds unto itself effortlessly, it doesn’t seem to need any help”
To make an effort does not mean to require help. And there is plenty of effort inside of the universe. Even my own efforts here alone are apparently required for existence to exist as it does. So I would argue that what the universe does is, like most of its inhabitants, follow at least generally the path of least resistance rather than that of no resistance at all. I may disagree with Experientialsm simply because I am not coming from an Experientialist perspective - and it seems to me Id have to depart from it to arrive at it. I cant make such a leap of faith; I simply trust my experience as it is over any thought about it, and as it is includes simply the world which I have come to know, however true my impressions may be it is my impressions which are the certain reality, not what they are impressed with - and all of this includes nuclear physics, which is where my journey once began because my father decided to teach it to me when I was 8 over the course of a summer. So my fundamental experience, my own personal experience is of the atom, as a theory yes, as a theory which allows us to split the atom, or to bind atoms together or to have them gradually alter into an atom adjacent in our table - it is all verified truth, and this is what experience means to me. Just what is there. And what is there, for example in the physics of atomic fusion and fission, is a threshold of resistance. That is what makes the gigantic fusion chamber of a star possible, that there is a threshold of resistance to be overcome. And so it is in all ranges of existence our experience reveal to us. Light is resisted by the substances it moves through and by the rate of its division we can calculate which substances these are - resistance is a medium, something existence uses to be something other than a perfectly smooth transition of potential, a perfectly homogenous field. And so precisely is our experience itself - this very experience here, me now and you now, different in time, bound in this post from a different perspective each and encountering each other as resistance, and thereby having the possibility of a debate, and a reason to bring things like this text into being. Even the very absence of knowledge served as a medium to early thinkers precisely because it formed a resistance, a things to put ones claws into, something which doesn’t instantly yield so that the effort was forced to take shape in time, acquire a character - there is a reason things are engraved in marble when they are meant to be remembered - the resistances of time itself are very cruel upon anything less resistant. Resistance, consistency, structural integrity - these are all ground-criteria derived directly from my own experience. All this said here is indeed no discrete experience, there is continuous experience of discrete entities. I realize only now I object to equating the concepts of “entity” and “discrete experience”. There are many strains of continuous experiences and the resistance between them is much of what they are experiencing. Sound, a spoken letter, A, is a whole artwork of resistances, through which the literal spirit, the breath, makes its way and takes shape. – This is what I asked really, when I wonder how one quantum of will to power could even “attack” another - what exactly provides the resistance, and how come this resistance isn’t absolute? What is this medium? And it turns out, it is the exchange of values which is resisted by the very value of the exchange. You can extrapolate this to philosophy, diplomacy, love, or the physical terrains where resistances gather powers around them which build until a threshold is met - and you can see it in the biological machinery of experience - resistance precedes experience, and is also the measure of experience when it comes.
Why would you trust your experience? You might say nobody has any choice other than to do so, since “your experience” is all you have available to you to access existence in the first place.
Indeed, that’s where I tried to start from myself - just the same as anyone.
But in realising that there are no gaps in experience, making it a continuous unity, “I” am not distinct from anything else, nor anything else to me, nor other things from other things than me. I can think of experience as thought it was discontinuous, dividing it up into parts that I feel I have more direct control over than others, and from this emerges traditional concepts of self. It’s no coincidence then, that the self has been notoriously evasive in the world of philosophy, with thought experiments like the Ship of Theseus or generally trying to imagine if you’d still be you if you lacked this part of experience and/or some other part etc. Experientialism already solved these problems through the truism that if your premise is faulty, so your conclusion will be also: divide up Continuous Experience, and you’ll be misled toward faulty concepts such as the self.
There’s no necessary requirement for the self to be constituted only from the more directly controllable “parts” of experience. “You” experience others and all “parts” that aren’t “your self” all within the same experience. Why are they then not “you” as well? And if you count everyone as you, where does the pronoun “you” make any difference as a concept since there’s nothing else against which to give it relative meaning. The “self” is all in unity, in more or less degrees of direct control or otherwise, with therefore no reason to think of it as “self” in the first place since since there is no “other” when you think of it in this wider way.
So “your” experience already inserts these value judgments of discrete experiences into the fundamental premises - and in just the same way as I just covered: if you have a faulty premise you will reason faulty conclusions.
This is why I threw out the initial assumption of self and “my” experience - as it didn’t fundamentally match up with experience as it exists in continuity. “My” experience could therefore not be trusted, and only “Experience” could be. You have to be able to let go of ego and all instinctive assumptions to be able to see experience as a whole in this way. You’ll find that even if you’re successful, what you thought of as yourself goes along and does its thing in just the same way as before regardless.
Nuclear physics and all science and knowledge involves resistance only because of the above faulty premises. It’s only once we accept such premises that we can perceive knowledge about resistance and power. Experience has a continuous variation in consistency throughout its fabric - obviously it’s not homogenous or there would be no grounds to superimpose “boundaries” between discrete entities. But rather than heterogenous it’s more “congeneous”. To overcome the strong nuclear force within an atom, you might perceive a resistance against your efforts - but there simply needs to be the correct conditions, and the atom is split or fused with another. The correct conditions can occur just by the sun being the sun, or it can occur just by a person being a competent enough scientist. Whatever the route, it’s nature being nature and the spectrum of consistency that pervades experience continually shifts itself around simply through being what it is. Any “resistance” here is a human valuation injected into the premises, thus leaving open the possibility to detect dissonance between discrete experiences and Continuous Experience. You can only get out resistance if you inject in the resistance of forcing “discrete” experiences from Continuous Experience in the first place. Our conceptual models of how these concepts interact can only contain all these “artworks of resistances” if you’re assuming things that involve resistance from the start: it’s circular.
“One” by itself isn’t mathematics - especially if “one” is “all”. You need to operate on “one” relative to some other discrete quantity that is distinct from “one”, such as “two” from adding one to one, or zero from subtracting one from one etc. All maths of all levels of complexity arises from these kinds of distinctions. Continuous unity defies this - unless you artificially dissect it into something it’s not: plural discrete experiences.
Silhouette wrote,
“Experience has a continuous variation in consistency throughout its fabric - obviously it’s not homogenous or there would be no grounds to superimpose “boundaries” between discrete entities.”
Not necessarily. There exists a dialectic of reason which geared toward the most essentially valid description.
There are no absolute axiomatic meaning projectiles , which can claim a superposition of absolute identity-in a universe of variable function ; even if approaching that absolute within a single minimum of variability from that absolute.
And fragmentation must adhere to that minimum, in an international structural universe between ontological certainty and epistemological uncertainty.
The identity of the minimal gap and the maximal flow, are co-determined absolutely and without reference.
That proposition makes the sensible claim uncertain to the inverse of it’s own proposition.
It’s like the argument of substantial co ntibuity can only work on an expanded grey field, between the cosmic and the microcosmic. Infinity has to obey this logistical problem, and it is the logistics which imminently create the logic.
The question becomes this low level superconscious distinction, whereby the gap must exist, if upper layers can be sustained.
Sure, big bang can destroy this structural necessity, but destruction is not a matter of mobilization, but a destruction of appearent structural schematics, the missing element always eternally producing the transformative transcendent object.
Gaps are naturally filled, whether rise to the level of conscious theoretical foundations.
This minimal gap, appearing as insubstantial, does have a being, of which , only it’s enamative existence can bring to light.
One is ALL mathematics is.
The moment you go “one,” you delineate a thing and abstract it as quantity, that is mathematics.
So discrete experience then.
I’m glad you’re on board.
The moment you delineate a thing and abstract it as a quantity, you invoke discrete experience.
This is because delineated quantities are definitions - and definitions require boundaries. Boundaries require dividing up experience.
“All one” has no boundaries, because if it did it would not be “all”. “All” defies definition.
So the “oneness” of Continuous Experience isn’t mathematical - no one “thing” has been delineated and abstracted as a quantity when it is all completely continuous throughout.
Defining “one” dissects Continuous Experience into what is “one” within its defining boundaries, from whatever else is on the other side of said boundaries that is “not one”.
That’s the beginning of mathematics from which you can actually operate mathematically to construct all the rest of mathematics.
.
Nonsense. All one is a deliniation. And, more importantly, a quantity. Why? Why is this posited?
Go on then, delineate “all” - give it an outline/a bound to define it.
What’s outside of that bound? More “all”? Nothing?
If more, then it wasn’t “all” that you were delineating, and if there’s nothing outside its bounds then there are no bounds.
A lack of bounds literally means infinite: unbounded.
Infinity is a quality of endlessness that has no quantity and cannot have quantity.
“All one” necessarily means no delineation, and a quality - not a quantity.
This is logically exhaustive - the literal opposite of nonsense.
So why are you positing the accusation of nonsense? I can only assume you simply don’t get the logic when you merely protest and simply claim otherwise with no acknowledgment of the reasoning or any counter-reasoning to support your claim?
“Go on then, delineate “all” - give it an outline/a bound to define it.”
All one.
And there we have it, the definition of “all one” is “all one”. =D>
Just like I was saying at the top of page two:
This interchange is boring, Pedro, I’ll wait to see if Fixed Cross or anyone else has anything else of import and substance to add.
If not, this investigation can be considered closed.
I don’t understand why levels of meaning can withstand the charge, that such ‘meaning’ is somehow at par with other interpretations. Just because it’s not understood, the levels of interpretation may correspond with no underlying ’ deeper ’ lacks between them: efforts to make such claims may murky, or collude them.
As difficult it is to pry for connections, even in such colluded waters, the are merely existentially reduced into epochs where no further clarification can be squeezed out. ( of meaning) Hence this is the reason for the weary effort to separate the phenomenologically patent understanding from the ideas Being inherent, since they patently are colluded within differential sets of continuous functions overlapping in variable sets.
The logic and the logistics are two such sets, and although the differences reside in a grey structural area -they harbor the underlying variations between subjective OR objective criteria, by which they are attempted to qualify, ( with or without ‘understanding’), whereby that bounded grey area is loaded into the reduction of the dialectic into substantial, …
That the failure of that is historically uncontested, -------resulted in the CONCLUSIVE political reality stood on it’s head today.
The material substantiality of the ideas underneath, is no example of a double talk, ideas do manifest prior
necessity before literally applying for the after the fact necessity of developing variability in the incorporation of sets belonging even in a set that incorporates it’s self, in the continuum.
How are why are auxiliary questions, and translate as totally redundant saturated sets in an absolute sense.
That sense and sensation are pivotal in this sense, draw analogy with the concept of tautology.
Sure, but that is not the field into which such descriptive apologies can be fitted, in an entropic attempt to handle them in the way Sartre describes Being and Nothingness.
The nothingness is what the abyss represents under the phenomenological existence of the uncertainty, later minimally, in quantum theory.
That the have not been able to find the absolute minimal particle in the 'god-particle , is an irony in disguise, for if god did ‘exist’ , wouldn’t he be capable to cover his tracks? After all he does not play with dice of uncertainty?
This is why the differential is infinitely extended, and the last unit of differencealways have to ‘exist’, even toward the infinitely variable substantial number.
Why? -
Logic and language and math are such continua, that necessarily always connect at a level, that if it did not ‘exist’ existence it’s self could not exist, could not. Here , the naturalistic fallacy is a string of near infinite weakness, holding up a mass of near infinite mass of the universe.
This merely an analogy that presents the pressures of a curve of time and space.
The particles and the gaps between them always pre determine their flow, or, their continua, which are nothing else then their functional representation, in the logic-mathematical Sense, and are Similar to the bricks which subsist in the finished building,
The flow is calculated in a calculation of near infinite sets of possible functional derivitives, minus one, creating two identical spheres.
That one is immeasurable in time space, and it does exist in time space, and it does not. It consists in absolute antithesis, of variable synthesis.
Sense resides in non-sense, but not in nonsense.
Fair enough.
With that You ignore the insensible problem which are bounded by logic and language and limit the sensible to sense.
Therefore the double take of meaning is bounded by language it’self, where the logic limits it.(it’s self)
But infinity is unbounded, therefore it behooves to at least explore the possibility for revision-for phenomenology can set a logical antithesis.
The bounded argument leaves logic at the point, where meaning can be left at a level where data of sense or ‘sense-data’ becomes indisputably an assumptive boundary.
Ill go with that, although I don’t agree with it’s ‘literal closure’, for a literal closure does not correspond to it’s functional equivalence.
In other words how can inside of experience ever be analyzed, when the experience is looked at merely from the outside, as it is bounded by literal descriptions of finitude?
The boundary becomes strange, and sets up the reduction absurdum that ends with ‘sense data’ ? That suggests the insolvency of the proposition, " what comes first. the chicken or the egg"?
Ref: ‘Mysticism and Logic’, Bertrand Russell
Indeed, such was the situation, for thousands of years. But VO solves the ship of Theseus problem, thus the problem of the self, revealing that behind the theoretical problem lay a deeper, existential problem at the heart of mankind.
That the problem could hitherto not be solved does not mean that we ought to disregard it and thereby consider it to no longer present itself.
It only means that mankind had not yet matured enough to look behind the question at what is actually being pined for.
“God”
This lack of understanding has been transposed to the inside of, if you will, experience – so that it now no longer means ignorance but cowardice.
Or, more mercifully; fear and confusion as to the source of the fear.
As stated in my previous post, I reject the notion of discrete experiences.
“Entity”, as stated, is in no way cognate with “discrete experience”.
Im not sure how crucial the equation of these two things is to your ontological argument.
All I know of experience is that it involves an “I”.
Anything beyond that suggesting there is no I, contradicts experience. Therefore, when we stay really true to actual experience, experimentalism refutes itself.
What is of course the case is hat the I is continuous and fluid. But certainly it isn’t border-less; run against a wall.
Experience reveals the limits to the I, and thus the I’s existence.
Man engineered in terms of these resistances and built nuclear reactors. Premises used were thus accurate. This is revealed directly by experience.
The problem as I see it is that you do interpret your experience logically, before letting it speak for itself.
In your argumentation, experience is an abstract thing which doesn’t need to be falsified by experience.
I wonder if you can rebuild your argument without the assumption that “entity” equates to “discrete experience” and that it stands in contradistinction to “continuous experience”. Remember, this challenge was also present in my previous post.
*I do invite you to read through this thread to learn of my methods. Ill reveal that indeed, it is still the ship of Theseus. What matters is the terms we set out initially to define the ship, but equally important is the logical method we use to give and uphold a definition. That is really what ontology comes down to, the structure of the definition; thus a proper ontology includes a complete philosophy of epistemology.