Being, you have warped Gustav’s mind and I had better stop the rot.
I will address you but you will be none the wiser after this piece and therefore I am making things clear for others. What I say is additional to and implicit to what I have already said about metaphysics and maths.
Already you begin by saying I will not understand but others will.
Would you feel better if I used the word arithmetic?
Metaphysics has nothing to do with maths.
Then it is not metaphysics. The reason, metaphysics must account for all phenomena.
This is a contradiction and it is you that is not seeing it.
Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth.
I do not know how many times I must say I agree before you realise I agree.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Let me try yelling:
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE.
This is what I agree with:
Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth.
That does not mean math has nothing to do with metaphysics - it only means mathematics is not able to divine absolute Truth. I get it you see - I sincerely hope at this point I have penetrated that point into your repulsing mind.
To make matters simple I will refer to God as the creator. God does not do maths.
Then this God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent and it is a logical flaw to call him the creator.
The reason, (notice how I do not make sweeping statements without underpinning the point. That is how you do real logic and stuff) God would then be subject to his own creation by the fact of not accounting for all universal phenomena.
In order for something to be known as the absolute it must, by the very definition, account for all things excluding nothing.
God works with dichotomies because of their inherent dynamism.
I agree. The reason I agree is the universe itself must have resistance in order to discern and function with information and energy.
You see how easy that is? To communicate and stuff. You gave a premise and an underpinning reason to substantiate your point. That is how you discuss logical frameworks. You cannot just announce "because I say so." Whether you realize it or not, that is what you have been doing.
Maths does not have a reciprocal to provide a subjective complement to maths’ objectivity.
Yes it does - the expansion rate of the universe/reality is identical to the data made available. That is entirely subjective.
In other words: the absolute is only True if it can be proved by logic through a series of negating all finite things.
The reason is; the Absolute cannot be measured by mathematics and on this point we agree. The only way left to provide evidence for the absolute is through a negative by a constant state of transcendance of all measurement.
If you have another way of providing evidence, by all means I am listening.
That automatically denies maths any prospect of immanent significance. Metaphysics cannot employ maths even if it wanted to, and it does not need to, nor want to be associated with maths.
Metaphysics employs the empty set or singularity which is impossible to define because it is infinite.
I think what you are saying is that the model can never be the reality of the absolute.
Historically there has never been an affinity between metaphysics and maths.
That is because the absolute is in a constant state of transcending all limits, measurement and boundaries. I would choose another word other than affinity. Perhaps coorelate as the absolute is beyond all limits.
That’s not to say some, including yourself and Pythagoras, have not tried to join maths to mysticism and / or metaphysics. It has not happened and the reason why is the above association of Truth with dichotomies.
Do you join language with the absolute? Does language have an affinity with the absolute?
The zeros and ones, i.e. “0’s” & “1’s”, that underpin this electronic message are based on empirical truth. This technological basis for communication is not metaphysical in its abstractions nor is it metaphysical in profundity.
Then why are you talking about it at all?
You have made the mistake that Marx and many others have, Gustav too apparently, of thinking metaphysics is comparable to empiricism in terms of its perspicacity.
No - you have been so dense you are incapable of comrehending anything but your own thoughts. You are oblivious (at least up to this point and I am hoping you have a paradigm) that unless you say it - it is not true by default.
The point that metaphysics is deeper than empiricism has been established with the two theories I have made more interesting by revealing their hidden logic. You appear to have charged onto this thread without taking the time to learn what has been explained.
No - the truth is I am at least five steps ahead of you (sounds like ego, I know) but you are to arrogant and deceptive to see it. Again, I am really hoping you see this so we can speak in mutual recognition. If the bubble pops for you, your experience will be amazement because if you truly understood what you yourself say ( I do not think you understand your own ideas) you could plainly see I have no trouble at all keeping up.
You already said I understood metaphysics, your purpose and have keen insight but what you seem to be unable to wrap your noodle around is how anyone can see what you are saying even though you said it yourself.
Gustav you are “a bear of little brain”.
Multiple choice:
"“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
1) Jesus the Christ
2) Donald Duck
3) Hakuin the Zen master
4) Adolf Hitler
5) All of the above
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
-- Paul the Apostle
Now to the insults. Don’t worry about my “big boy pants”. In terms of pants and metaphysics, you don’t even have undies. Hence I’ve had to kick your bare arse. Now piss off.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.