Reality

[analog57]

Quote:Quote:<hr>

ksolway writes:


I am writing that all your statements are necessarily false, according to your own reasoning.
<hr>

Then you don't understand the reasoning.

The general contains the specific in that general rules apply to many specific instances. If A=A is the most general principle, it supercedes all possible existences, in that it applies to all that can exist.

If A=A is not the most general principle then it does not apply to the existence of all possible worlds.

[David Quinn]

analog wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Are you stating that A=A is the most general principle of all?<hr> It's one of a number of general principles which universally apply to all things. Other general principles include "all things have causes" and "all things lack inherent existence".

In a sense, A=A is the most fundamental of the general principles since it underpins all consciousness and knowledge, including the knowledge of causality and non-inherent existence - and for that matter, the knowledge that our knowledge of the empirical world is incomplete. In another sense, causality is. It depends on how you look at it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

ok, so if A=A isn't absolutely true, then are you stuck back at "A"?

A

That's all the logic you are letting yourself use, analog. And you can't even say that the A is true, because it's not an operation, so truth hasn't been defined yet.

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, A=A and the way it is explained are more or less linguistic conveniences. One can merely say "A" if one comprehends the meaning of it. A=A is not a "truth" because, as you say, it is not an operation of any kind. The duality of true/false does not apply to it - though one must often speak in such terms until a better understanding of the issue is reached. A=A underpins all conceptualising because it expresses existence and consciousness in a fundamental way. The idea, asserted by Analog, that some kind of future knowledge might falsify A=A demonstrates more than clearly that he/she doesn't get it.

Knowledge of any kind - or even more basically - experience of any kind has content - i.e. differentiated things. The principle of identity, expressed in A=A, automatically applies and cannot therefore be falsified but instead only validated. And, frankly, it doesn't even really make sense to say that such things "validate" A=A because it forms the basis of all such formulations of mind.


Dan Rowden

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Simply by saying "A", then, analog is already using A=A?

It seems that the assumption to be challenged, in that case, is not whether or not definitions are truthful, but if abstraction may be used at all.

To challenge A=A (A), then, one would have to say that all abstractions are meaningless, impossible, or false. They are clearly not meaningless, because we can take meaning from an abstraction. They are clearly not impossible, because we use them constantly. To assume, finally, that they are false is to be in constant contradiction -- furthermore, that would completely destroy the meaning of the word 'false', because 'true' could not be defined.

The only leap of faith made is the admission that truth exists. The only consistent counter-argument to this belief is silent madness.

[000jlj000]

Quote:Quote:<hr>analog57:
Since all possible worlds can never be fully known, there can never be absolute certainty in the universal sense.
<hr>

That is, unless there is universal conciousness instantiated as individuals.

Then, all possible worlds are known, infinitely.

Every flawed application of language is yet another world.
All applications of language are flawed, including
this one.

At infinity, all this is resolved.
In the meanwhile, it IS entertaining.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Quote:Quote:<hr>They are clearly not impossible, because we use them constantly.<hr>
I am highly suspicious of what I wrote right here. It is not completely clear that abstraction is possible. Can anything be abstracted from the crux of reality and be used, therefore, to prove something is true for all reality?

It would be as Dan said, a 'linguistic convenience'. Truth only exists so long as we define it to exist. As soon as truth is defined, however, the consequence is that certain things must be true, simply based on the definition of truth.

In which case, certain facts of logic, and logic itself, are undeniably true. Logic implies truth, and truth implies logic. But one can still reject both truth and logic.

Unfortunately, there is no alternative way to discover the truth about reality. One simply cannot abandon truth and still hope to find truth. That is illogical, false thinking.

So, if I'm reading what I said correctly, even if abstraction is completely impossible it still can be used by us to arrive at truth. :)

[meaning: even if complete abstraction is impossible, partial abstraction can still be used to arrive at truth] Edited by: mookestink at: 6/28/05 2:38

[Naturyl]

If your mouth is moving or your fingers are typing, you are validating A=A. It isn't possible to think, express, or argue any concept without acknowledging it, unconsciously or otherwise.

[analog57]

How can we even challenge the law of identity? It is impossible for our minds to do so.

If existence is ultimately a paradox then A=A is merely an emergent property of ultimate reality, where the ultimate reality is not beholden to any identity.

<a href="http://www.taoism.net/laotzu/taote/chap ... p01.htm</a>


Quote:Quote:<hr>
The Tao's external manifestations (life, nature, the cosmos, and so on) and its inner wonders (oneness, the living void, the flow, etc.) are both emergent properties of the ultimate reality. Although we call them by different names, they are but two sides of the same coin.

This unity of the two aspects gives us an interesting paradox. They seem distinctively different, and yet they lead to one another. Understanding of the Tao's inner essence gives one greater understanding of its outer manifestations, and vice versa.

Our recognition and acknowledgement of this paradox will open the door for us to further explore the infinite wonders of the Tao.
<hr>

[Beingofone]

The essence of existence itself or reality is always fascinating and holds my attention, especially since I seem to not be able to do without it ;)

Good thoughts from everyone here.

000jlj000
Quote:Quote:<hr>That is, unless there is universal conciousness instantiated as individuals.

Then, all possible worlds are known, infinitely.<hr>

What an ambitious perception. Sure shows some hutzpa.
Can you back that up? :)
I only disagree with one word, instantiated, how about manifested. I am energy, that is what my consciousness is and will always be. Think of me as oh - the burning bush.
BTW - think of yourself the same way.

analog57

Quote:Quote:<hr>ultimate reality<hr>

Lots of people now using my phrase - COOL

Quote:Quote:<hr>If existence is ultimately a paradox then A=A is merely an emergent property of ultimate reality, where the ultimate reality is not beholden to any identity.<hr>

Tao is an incredible stretching of the concept and mind, hopefully until you lose it :). Stretch it a bit further until it compacts back into itself. Then, the next time it stretches, it wll just keep going, kinda like the Energizer Bunny.
Lao was way ahead of his time, we now know that change is inexaustable, the universe is in a constant state of flux as is identity.
The best that can be done is a history lesson and by the time you have finished, it is history.
What does not change is the reality of the experience that never changes. I believe that is what David is saying, correct me if I misunderstood.

So the constant that always remains the same is change. That is proven by the means of never, and I mean never, having repeated an experience. You have never experienced an identical day, meal, or conversation. Yet your reality of these experiences were true and the ultimate reality eh? That is why there is no way to define identity.

You cannot have another reality because there is only one, yours. The fundamental fabric of reality is you.
You can project thought and logic and say "but there are other conscious beings" - it is still you perceiving and experiencing "other conscious beings".

To put it in another way, you are the Absolute that makes comparisons. These are just the Absolute comparing itself to itself.

[Beingofone]

Quote:Quote:<hr>I think you are being blinded by your own ideology - which, funnily, enough, just happens to be identical to the current ideology of modern society. It is causing you remain blind to a simple and obvious truth which is right before your very eyes.<hr>

Or right between the eyes lol
Could not agree more, to completely trust one`s self takes more courage than martyrdom. You are almost always alone with your convictions.
Ah - but how refreshing to be free from the external crowd and the voice of conformity.


Analog
Quote:Quote:<hr>Anything undergoing change through time is not equal to its former self in the next moment...<hr>

Are you saying you are not a complete person but some day you will be? Or are you never going to be a complete entity?
Just because you are in a constant state of evolving does not mean you are not complete. Are you experiencing reality?
Is your reality whole?
If not is there another reality you can experience that would be complete and whole?

[sevens]

Analog,

Be cautious in your choice of words, lest you become a paradox, unto yourself.

Your last entry contained two contradictions, both left untrue. It is impossible for our finite minds to logically defeat A=A. Yet you procede to claim that ultimate reality lacks identity - and in the face of its 'emergent properties' being evident in the manifestations of the eternal Tao!

[birdofhermes]

How can A=A when there is no A to be pinned down - just constant flux?

There can be only one A.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Quote:Quote:<hr>There can be only one A. <hr>
Correct. There is indeed only one A. It just happens to be written twice.

[David Quinn]

Even constant flux has an identity, which is what makes it distinguishable from stillness or staticness.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

What's really being defined in A=A is the equal sign, not the A.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:Quote:<hr>Even constant flux has an identity, which is what makes it distinguishable from stillness or staticness.<hr> Things have no boundaries. Time and events have no boundaries. Concepts perhaps do, but they are largely delusional. Can a thing without boundaries be defined?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Correct. There is indeed only one A. It just happens to be written twice.<hr> That's not what I meant.

Quote:Quote:<hr>What's really being defined in A=A is the equal sign, not the A.<hr> Well, I have no argument with the equal sign. And by the way, I told you from the beginning you weren't crazy. At least, not schzophrenic.

[David Quinn]

Bird wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Can a thing without boundaries be defined?<hr> It is our very definitions which create the boundaries. Things only come into existence, and have boundaries, when we define them to exist.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Things have no boundaries. Time and events have no boundaries. Concepts perhaps do, but they are largely delusional.<hr> Like anything else, concepts only have boundaries when we determine, in our imaginations, that they have boundaries.

[jimhaz]

How can A=A when there is no A to be pinned down - just constant flux?

There can be only one A.

That is correct. There is only one A, but many different ways in which a conscious being can interpret that A. Which I presume is the meaning of A=A. If it isn't then I do not grok A=A.

This of course means that all the quantum mechanics guff about additional dimensions is COMPLETELY FALSE. Of this I am certain - all dimensions (apart from the dimensions of Existence itself and negative/positive attributes) are simply determined by the facilities of the observer. QM is just about maths dudes playing games [all physics is maths, nothing more].

[David Quinn]

Jimhaz wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>There is only one A, but many different ways in which a conscious being can interpret that A. Which I presume is the meaning of A=A. If it isn't then I do not grok A=A.<hr> The "A" stands for each and every thing in the Universe - whether it be a mountain, cloud, person, quantum wave particle, moment in time, stream of contant flux, even the Totality itself. And each of these things can be viewed in a variety of different ways - the "A" stands for each of these as well.

But throughout all this, the same basic principle remains - namely, that what is perceived at any given moment is, in fact, what is perceived in that given moment and not something other.

[birdofhermes]

Quote:Quote:<hr>Things only come into existence, and have boundaries, when we define them to exist.
Like anything else, concepts only have boundaries when we determine, in our imaginations, that they have boundaries.<hr> In that case, when we say A=A, we are not talking about the real world, but our imaginary interpretations of it.

When I say there can be only one A, I am referring to the Totality. Only existence itself is independent.

Quote:Quote:<hr>That is correct. There is only one A, but many different ways in which a conscious being can interpret that A. Which I presume is the meaning of A=A. If it isn't then I do not grok A=A.<hr> How can A=A if one can interpret it any way one likes?

Quote:Quote:<hr>This of course means that all the quantum mechanics guff about additional dimensions is COMPLETELY FALSE. Of this I am certain - all dimensions (apart from the dimensions of Existence itself and negative/positive attributes) are simply determined by the facilities of the observer. QM is just about maths dudes playing games [all physics is maths, nothing more].<hr>Please lay out for me the connection here, between the two thoughts, that the individual interpretation of A means that quantum mechanics is false. Do you agree that there are three dimensions, perhaps four? Why is it unlikely that there are more dimensions, given the incredible smallness of the microscopic world? Isnt that cmpatible with your statement that the dimensions are determined by the facilities of the observer?

[analog57]

The unifying symmetry of "all possible worlds" would be just that, a symmetry. But to state the top relation - that necessarily relates to everything else as the absolute? I am not so sure.

A broken symmetry only occurs with respect to a higher level of symmetry. That logical realization seems to imply that there are infinite levels of symmetry.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry#S ... physics</a>

Quote:Quote:<hr>
Symmetry in physics

The generalisation of symmetry in physics to mean invariance under any kind of transformation has become one of the most powerful tools of theoretical physics.
<hr>



Symmetry has greater explanatory power than the concept of "absolute".

[sevens]

Analog,

A broken symmetry does not necessarily imply 'infinite levels' - the 'highest symmetry' would be the Absolute.

[analog57]

Quote:Quote:<hr>

sevens wrote:


A broken symmetry does not necessarily imply 'infinite levels' - the 'highest symmetry' would be the Absolute.
<hr>


The highest symmetry would necessarily be a perfect unbroken symmetry, with no higher levels. That is because any broken symmetry exists with respect to a higher level, of greater symmetry. So the highest level of symmetry would by necessity, be invariant under all possible operations.

Infinite levels are implied.

[sevens]

I variantly agree.

If the 'highest symmetry' is a perfect unbroken symmetry, and constant under all circumstances: Where do you find 'infinite levels'?