ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, WTP)

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:23 pm

It also refutes sin.

Hahahahahaha.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:29 pm

This has arrived at that stage of arguing with a dog about distinguishing color - so I'll let you blokes strive in your respective bubbles. O:)
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:34 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:That's like saying that green is only a quality when it actually applies to something.

Well, I was still half talking to the infinitesimal dunces. Trying to get them to move in the direction of thought. Of course you're right.

Numbers always apply to something, even if only presumably, otherwise they would not work.

You see what I'm saying?

If A > 0 < A, then quantity is only ever particular.

Yes.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:37 pm

Even in the realms that work with infinitesimals, they are only accepted to be logically valid by virtue of having certain particular qualities. A number, even if it is an infinitesimal, must embody a particular quality to exist in a formal system of logic. In case of actual quantities, quality is found in the quantity itself. In case of infinitesimals, quality must be interpreted into them for them to be able to be interpreted at all. And that can evidently go very wrong.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:58 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:It also refutes sin.

Hahahahahaha.

8)
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:34 am

I did some verification on all this, as Im not usually interested in such facile notions as the infinitesimal, but it seems to me now that the logical function of any such infinitesimal endowed with a nonuniversal quality, can only be the same as the function of 1.
So this quality will be made explicit at some arbitrary time at which point it ceases to slither between the lines of reality like a the hypothesis pure infinitesimal and becomes a part of a system of juxtapositions, a logic;
Usually however the qualities required for logical operations are superimposed on the idea of the infinitesimal by arranging an overlap of paradigms, of being accurate and not accurate, essentially. Generating rather than an uncertainty principle, an irrelevance principle.

And yes, the discovery of the problem of quantum mechanics is that the physical world on the subatomic scale simply does not correspond to an arrangement of fluxions or infinitesimals or whatever would be nice and smooth and easy, but that there are discrete minima, which are able to empirically exist only if they are left entirely to their own devices. At this level, scrutiny is only possible in general terms and manipulation simply alters the nature of the object. The quality of existence in this scale is fragile, as it is indeed a delicate mechanism, the self-valuing logic. Existence, for all particles, is a form of mastery. Our own mastery required for our own existence is a reflection of this.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:35 am

Jakob wrote:So you can't exactly remember but I took it directly form it.... hmm hm. Your rigor is impressive.


I merely stated what I think.

I am sure that Nietzsche argued against "A is A". I merely don't remember exactly why (I have an idea though.) I also know that how you think and how you write is heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

Jakob wrote:Im saying it is inefficient in representing reality.


That's not a statement of yours that I addressed.

What I addressed is:

Jakob wrote:In mathematics thus also in RM,
1=1.
But that presumes that "1" equals "1" and nothing else. That is, a sign without content.


Here, you make the following claims:

1) Mathematics and RM claim that 1 = 1.
(True.)

2) Mathematics and RM claim that 1 = 1 because they presume that "1 equals 1 and nothing else".
(Whatever the part surrounded by the quotes means, this statement of yours is false, because the conclusion that 1 is equal to 1 is not derived from any presumptions.)

3) 1 = 1 is not true.
(False.)

Yes, Im aware of how the language works.


I am not so sure.

In mathematics, "1=1" is a linguistic statement (= a statement about language.) It states no more than "The left 1 represents the same number as the right 1". It is neither stating that "Every portion of the universe that can be represented by 1 is completely identical to every other portion that can also be represented by 1" nor that "There are portions of reality that can be represented by 1". First of all, "1" cannot be used to represent any portion of reality. Not because the makeup of reality is such but quite simply because it's not that kind of concept. You must combine it with another concept in order to be able to do so. For example, "one dog" combines "1" and "dog" to get something that can be potentially used to represent something real. You can't say "There is one in this room". That makes no sense. One WHAT? You can't just say "one". But you can say "There is one dog in this room". That makes sense and it's either true or false. (And there are plenty of rooms in this world to which this statement truthfully applies.) And "one dog" is not a number/quantity but a number/quantity of dogs. It is more than just a number/quantity.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:47 am

Pedro wrote:What I mean is that quantity is always a quality. To make a blunt example: in "three trees," three is a quality of the trees. Because it pertains to the actual things.


Pedro wrote:"Three trees" is a group. Three is a quality of the trees.


I am not so sure. A group of three trees has the quality of consisting of three objects. One of the qualities of that group is "it consists of three objects". Not merely "three". Saying that "three" is a quality of that group sounds strange.

But whatever the case, I don't see how it proves that 1 =/= 1.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:52 am

Magnus you must trust me that what you say is perfectly elementary.

What Im teaching is that language has its limits, as it has been developed so far. It can only stay on, metaphorically speaking, the surface of a globe, the content of which is untouchable to it with its barbaric forms of grammar and identification.

You are telling me basically that language exists, and that I ought to believe in it otherwise I cant think.
Im a writer. I know how language works, how hard it is to not let it carry itself away. Language is very dumb and very naive.

"A"="A'" means simply that the person wants to speak the truth but is very clumsy about that and needs to secure to himself that what he is doing makes sense. It doesn't actually make sense in complex systems. You can never step into the same river twice. You can never say the same word twice. You can never juxtapose an "A" with an "A" and have either of them be truly equal to simply "A".

You're doing something when you're juxtaposing terms, and it has consequences on every element of that juxtaposition. The initial state of your proposition determines both its possible pasts (implications) and futures (consequences).
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:55 am

So with all that power that we can exert by propositioning some equation, I decided to step back and see what happens to the "A" when it is placed in a propositional format.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:03 am

The entire intuition of "object" is false. We can impose this intuition on any term we invent, and "imagine it", which proves that the intuition is false.

There is no such simple thing as "an object". Therefore we cant impose such simplicity on any abstract entity either. We must begin with something more complex in fact, to hermetically invest our mind in the task of setting forth a logical procedure about reality and inside of reality.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:15 am

And yes Im aware of all the funny linguistic contradictions. Thats what you get when youre using straightforward language to break down straightforward language.
So, I came with a form that doesnt produce contradictions, because it doesnt allow for any hypothesis other than those that satisfy the rigorous conditions of existence in a system, such as a universe or a logical order.

In a sense I reversed causality, but only where logic must admit to being a true cause of any argument it might make.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:21 am

Consciousness is far more powerful than we hoped. Alas.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:23 am

Jakob wrote:Magnus you must trust me that what you say is perfectly elementary.


I trust you that it's perfectly elementary. What I don't trust you is that you understand perfectly elementary stuff (:

What Im teaching is that language has its limits


I think we all understand that languages have their limits and that they may require further development in order to accommodate new needs. That's not the issue. The issue is your claim that "1=1" is not true. And my suspicion is that you do not understand what "1=1" stands for.

You are telling me basically that language exists, and that I ought to believe in it otherwise I cant think.


I am telling you that if you don't understand the language that other people are using, you are very likely to misunderstand what is it that they are saying.

"A"="A'" means simply that the person wants to speak the truth but is very clumsy about that and needs to secure to himself that what he is doing makes sense. It doesn't actually make sense in complex systems. You can never step into the same river twice. You can never say the same word twice. You can never juxtapose an "A" with an "A" and have either of them be truly equal to simply "A".


There you go again.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:23 am

All rhetoric aside, let's truly scrutinize the concept of infinitesimals upon which the notion of affectance-mathematics rests. I recommend that you study the history of the theory of infinitesimals to falsify all the following.
---An infinitesimal is something we can by implication of its definition, i.e. with analytic certainty, not observe.

How, - when but especially how - does a thing we can by virtue of the implications of its definition not observe, amount to something we can observe?

In terms of certain properties, an infinitesimal is 1.
In terms of other properties, an infinitesimal is 0.
An infinitesimal is originally a property of language.
At one point does it become more than language? Same question as the first one.

When are the implications of the definition lifted?


When there’s a great deal of what has been defined?
Does it seem like this actually adds up? Does the consequence of this format amount to reality?

When are the implications of the definition lifted?

The answer, if there would be any, would be; when it becomes a self-valuing. (i.e. when more substantial definition start to apply to it)
But that is as much as to say; when it begins to exist.

When it begins to behave in such terms that we can say that it exists. When there is something to define. An affectance of any sort begins with a self-valuing logical procedure; a self-reciprocity which is by its self-reciprocity an influence on other self-reciprocities and continues to exert influence though not necessarily the same throughout time - the quantity of the affectance isn’t the criterion for its existence, but the consistency in the quality of its interactions. Its character is, in fact, the closest we have to the mechanism of its existence, the reason of its existence, the reason of its high probability.

Integrity is everything. Every thing is an integrity, and the greatest of integrities is never predictable beforehand, because its apprehension necessarily follows of the deepest chaos; a truth has a chasm of lies around it. A self-valuing as a ring of contradictions around it. A quantum casts an degree of uncertainty upon its observers. Being is inscrutable to being; thus “A” could not possibly be defined so hermetically as to be compared to itself with analytic certainty, except when it is transposed directly to the observer, in which case the state can be verified. And as soon as you say “I is I”, you know that you are lying.

Heraclitus was right - but about what? That was hitherto unknown. Self-valuing logic produces the interactions of the invisible with the visible and as such they are the ground to flux (and fluxions) and operate beyond chaos, causing it about them, allowing interactions of entities without collapse into each other. Allowing thus time-space. There may be an event horizon to time itself which we call the Big Bang, but even that is merely the aggregate consequence of the logic of self-valuing units, which exist both by their own definition and by all provable definitions of existence.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:44 pm

Yes, this whole thing does very good justice to Heraclitus.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:22 pm

What do you reckon, did I destroy Plate?

I think I get a special helmet for that.

In any case I destroyed the great equalizer...
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:50 pm

Plate would not have understood shit.

Which does make it delicious. Aside from its own reason.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:06 pm

Plate would not have understood shit.

That's true of course.

4zq18r.jpg
4zq18r.jpg (105.24 KiB) Viewed 286 times


Still. He is dust and Im claiming my helmet.

Im considering, as there won't be an event as momentous as what just happened here, to from now on go by the name of Fixed Cross in real life. Introduce myself as such to people. I need a name which hasn't been carried by anyone before.
Though "Jakob Milikowski" is fairly unique and very powerful, I need a completely particular first name.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:15 pm

It is proper.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:17 pm

Of course you will have to put out a rap album.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:42 pm

I do.

Ive just gotten new headphones. First decent pair Ive owned since the ones you brought to the place.

I still have that same mic too, the black SE. I will have to get a new one though.

In any case.

A chapter has been completed. Change is afoot.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:46 pm

Ugh, what cowards.

The James/not James guy and Magnus --- what is this, if you don't understand, you pretend to yourself that you're above it?

Fuck you.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:50 pm

"Nah, I reads on wikipedia that its like, uhh I mean, I read like, uhh, I mean I can't really read but uhhh like, you're like, so wrong dude, uhh uhuhuhh uhhhhh let me uhhuhh make a joke now huhuuhuh"


And they scurry off to some thread made by people with 2 digit IQs to feel good about themselves.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:53 pm

Pezerocles wrote:Valuation as a viable answer to Nietzsche's call to move from the truth/appearance duality...

Yes, maybe.

I will read this a few times more.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users