FIGHT!

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Getoriks and I are locked in a battle. A battle of logic, but Getoriks is clearly on the side of evil!

Things that Getoriks holds true (that I disagree with):
1.) Infinity is not a thing.
2.) Infinity neither exists nor doesn't exist.
3.) Infinity includes nothing.


Point 1:
Getoriks is clearly wrong about this because Infinity is a thing because it is not nothing.

Point 2:
Getoriks is clearly wrong about this because Infinity simply doesn't exist. Saying that something doesn't not exist means that it DOES exist.
So in saying Infinity neither exists nor doesn't exist he is saying it actually does both (unintentionally).

Point 3:
Infinity cannot include nothing because it includes many things. You cannot have a thing and nothing at the same time. For example, you cannot have chicken for dinner and nothing for dinner at the same time.
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Getoriks »

Well, if you want to make it a Pokemon battle, then uh, I guess we'll "FIGHT!" ... >.>

To my mind, existence and non-existence simply are not applicable to the Universe in the way that wet and dry are not applicable to gravity.

Just because we define wet as "not dry" and dry as "not wet" does not therefore mean that gravity is wet when we say that gravity is not dry (because neither is it wet, in other words, because neither dry nor wet apply to gravity).

There is no logical contradiction there.

The reason they are not applicable is because the Universe is not a finite thing, it has no set identity, it cannot be captured in any particular concept. It is non-dual.

As for the Universe including nothing, I'm not sure what that means...
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

The wetness or dryness of gravity is absurd because gravity has no physical characteristics because it is a force, not an object. Existence or non-existence of Infinity is applicable though. It simply means to have an appearance, and we can agree that infinity doesn't have an appearance. Where we disagree is when you say it does not not exist (which grammatically means that it does exist because "not not" is a double negative which makes a positive). This means that you're saying that it both exists and doesn't exist. It has an appearance and doesn't have an appearance. Then you say that appearance is not an applicable trait to Infinity, when in fact it is. Existence and non-existence are opposites which means they are they only 2 options.


I never said that the universe was a finite thing. I'm saying the universe is the ONLY infinite thing.

And it is absurd that you have disagreed with me so heartily upon the idea that Infinity includes nothing when you admit that you don't know what it means.
I mean exactly what it sounds like I mean. "Nothing" cannot be included in Infinity because "nothing" isn't real, hell, "nothing" cannot even be accurately conceived of. Usually when we think of "nothing" we think of blackness, but even that is "something".
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Russell Parr »

If Getoriks is actually referring to Infinite/Ultimate Reality when he says "Infinity," then I would agree with him.

But let's say that you two are arguing about the concept of Infinity. Then I would agree with your rebuttal to point 1.

Point 2: The concept of Infinity is ultimately just a appearance just as all other things.

Point 3: "Nothing" is just another concept, which also is another appearance within Infinite Reality.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

looks more like pillow talk taken out of the bedroom.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:If Getoriks is actually referring to Infinite/Ultimate Reality when he says "Infinity," then I would agree with him.

But let's say that you two are arguing about the concept of Infinity. Then I would agree with your rebuttal to point 1.

Point 2: The concept of Infinity is ultimately just a appearance just as all other things.

Point 3: "Nothing" is just another concept, which also is another appearance within Infinite Reality.
Nothing isn't even really a concept. It's impossible to even conceive of nothing. (as I said, even "blackness" isn't nothing)
When we talk about "infinity" it may be a concept but that concept is a direct symbol of Infinite/Ultimate Reality itself, just like when we talk about numbers. There can be 3 rubber ducks but the 3 is a symbol that represents the ducks themselves. We know that what we mean by "infinity" by using the word/concept of infinity. The concept of infinity obviously isn't infinity itself but it refers to it directly.

Also we should consider the grammar of the situation. Look at any dictionary. "Universe" and "infinity" are both nouns. Nouns are people, places or THINGS.


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 9560_n.jpg
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Russell Parr »

"Nothing" most definitely is a concept or else there wouldn't be any meaning behind the word.

I think a better understanding of the non-dual nature of Reality is in order. In consciousness, duality is necessary in order for distinctions to arise.. but ultimately, it's just a trick that Nature has conjured up for us in order for us to have "experience." But what is this "experience" really? It's just one thing in nature interacting with another. The atoms of a rock is interacting with the atoms of the dirt it rests upon in order to have the experience of "just sitting there."

Now of course we don't think of rocks sitting on the ground as an "experience", but only and precisely because it is entirely impractical to do so. All I've really done here is simplified what we normally mean by "experience" to demonstrate the point I'm making.. that consciousness is just another causal interaction just as all things occurring in nature.

Duality comes in after the fact. Duality is what happens when the processes that make up our consciousness interacts with its environment and itself. Overall, and beyond consciousness, is simply non-dual Reality. It takes the causal interactions of consciousness to produce duality, which we can conclude is ultimately illusory since it doesn't accurately describe the nature of Reality.

I hope that made some sense.

What I'm trying to say is, Getoriks seems to be getting at the non-dual nature of the Infinite, while you're still quibbling with dualistic concepts.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:"Nothing" most definitely is a concept or else there wouldn't be any meaning behind the word.
.....
What I'm trying to say is, Getoriks seems to be getting at the non-dual nature of the Infinite, while you're still quibbling with dualistic concepts.
Well we can talk about square circles and married bachelors too but those are non-concepts also.
Basically what I'm saying is that "nothing" in an impossibility, which means there is only infinity, which affirms a non-dual view.

What Getoriks is saying is a contradiction in and of itself.

Infinity isn't nothing, there for it has to be a thing. (these are the only two options logically)
Infinity cannot exist because there's "nothing" to compare/contrast it to.
Infinity cannot include "nothing" because including nothing would cancel out "things". (you can only have something OR nothing, not both simultaneously)


I would even go as far as to say that Infinity cannot be conceived of either which is why IT doesn't exist.
When we think of "infinity" we probably think of a picture of a galaxy or something but that isn't an accurate depiction of infinity, just as darkness isn't "nothing".


So Infinity and Nothing both cannot exist. Only finite things can exist.

It all goes along with the "law of identity" which is:
A equals A, Infinity equals Infinity
A cannot equal not A, Infinity cannot equal Not Infinity
And Infinity is everything, so the only thing Infinity isn't is "nothing".

Getoriks however makes the mistake of saying that the law of identity (logic) doesn't apply to everything/infinity for some reason.

Logic HAS to apply to everything, including Infinity.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

As to the domain of logic,
a psychological element is unobtrusively permitted to intrude forcefully into said domain,

if p then q.

if I believe 'then' q.
what's in it for me is the conditional operator.

check the condition your condition is in.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Fox »

Where? Is Yahooyoda?

You're all} wrong....

You're staring right-at-it {Genotoriks...}
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Infinity cannot be a concept because if it were a concept then it would exist AS a concept and only finite things can exist, even as concepts. All we have is the WORD infinity and that is not infinity itself. (the tao that can be spoken is not the tao).

Saying that the law of identity (logic) only applies to "things" is inaccurate because it is when we apply logic to non-things (such as square circles) that we can refute them.

There is no duality. There is only Infinity.

Also, who says that all things must be finite? That's an arbitrary rule. That's like saying all "things" must be blue. The only thing that a "thing" must be is "not nothing". A must only equal A.

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 2853_n.jpg
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You'd have to read Hegel.

Infinite is a Notion.
It is generated in a dialectical process or called forth.
It is a quality.

Usually people are 'listening' for recipes, scripts, formulas, explanations, in a context of 'greedy for information' or stuff they can use to attach to for survival options.
Infinite cannot be used because then it falls to finite.

It's a transformational dialogue.
Infinite is indefinable and yet in the dialogue, that indefinable something does not slip away but displays its gathering force ever more luminously.

It is a possibility TO BE.

ecstasy and freedom break thru'.

It is always/already prior to any discriminations concerning theism and atheism which are recipes.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote: Things that Getoriks holds true (that I disagree with):
1.) Infinity is not a thing.
..

Point 1:
Getoriks is clearly wrong about this because Infinity is a thing because it is not nothing.
The interesting thing is that in such discussions the same logic might as well apply to any other thing, not just "infinity", meaning that every thing is infinite and the infinite is in every thing. This makes it impossible to remain a thing. And the problem with "nothing" is that it's inconceivable unless in the context of an already defined collection, like the famous empty set: remaining just a particular thing that way.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: This makes it impossible to remain a thing.
How so?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Russell Parr »

No-thing, no-self, meaninglessness, etc. is the true state of Reality. It just is. Things, that is, the conception of things (including the concept of the Infinite), is dualistic because it deals with A and not A. Therefore, the Infinite, in true reference to it, is not a thing.

Would you be happy to simply call the Infinite the only non-dual thing, despite the contradiction in doing so?
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:No-thing, no-self, meaninglessness, etc. is the true state of Reality. It just is. Things, that is, the conception of things (including the concept of the Infinite), is dualistic because it deals with A and not A. Therefore, the Infinite, in true reference to it, is not a thing.

Would you be happy to simply call the Infinite the only non-dual thing, despite the contradiction in doing so?
Nothing = no thing, and that cannot be what Infinity is.
I agree that reality "just is" though.
Just because there is "A" and "not A" doesn't mean that it's dualistic.
In the case of Infinity "not A" simply means "nothing" which affirms that there is only "A".
So it's not actually a contradiction to call infinity a non-dual thing.

I'll change my mind If there is any logically consistent text out there on the web that says ALL of the following:

1.) Infinity doesn't exist. (should be easy since we know it's true)
2.) Logic/The law of Identity only applies to finite things (probably difficult because it's not true)
3.) Infinity is not a thing. (should be difficult also)
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Russell Parr »

We're not talking about Infinity, we're talking about the Infinite. Ultimate Reality.

You're still quibbling.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Fox »

Russel,

I can say, "' Dear, Russel." However, awkward that sounds...The, base of my voice is predominantly-
An epiphony-

Now, I was once, asked on GF " What? Came, first? The chicken or the egg..." Sounds-reasonable. I began to search, my feelings for that notion of belief. Every-day there are beliefs, belief systems, trust, faith.....god. Wonton.

But, undoubtedly, our future holds the key" To Enlightenment' or per-An Ultimate Reality...Ya, see, Russel I said, " Russel...." Not Van Diebert. V But, Russel. The-
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:We're not talking about Infinity, we're talking about the Infinite. Ultimate Reality.

You're still quibbling.
I'm using the words "infinity" and "the infinite" and "Ultimate Reality" all synonymously.

If the part I bolded is logically inconsistent point out where, please.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Fox »

Key-

Is Fitis' Fitis-
Those, are transitional-words. I baked a cake { An old philosophical truth}. I can walk. I can talk....but, the reality 'is' Reason. Reason, undefined-has been in our midst....since, the beginning of Time.
I choose my words carefully. I feel pain, anger, smitten, etc. The ol root to philosophy is designed to tell us that " H2o " is/was the beginning. But, Philo-there is an end to....what, we might say to the reader.....die. No. Live. In the Now, but, not in Eternity.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Fox »

OMG Reasoning-
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Fox »

Ya

There, needs to be a 'tie'
Whom goes first?

If god creates....illusions.

I am not god. I am person placed in a thing and ideals. " What? came, first? The chicken or the egg?"

god created everything out of nothing-or nothingness. Plural: gods? I see, no point- you may have wondered. But, god-creates. All. Is in the house of the wreck-less. All is a painted theo-logical pic-ture. With, every bit of information.
You're logically finite brain(s) will never expire....Unto date.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Russell Parr »

Orenholt wrote:In the case of Infinity "not A" simply means "nothing" which affirms that there is only "A".
Actually "not A" means anything and everything that isn't "A", including "nothing".. unless A is "nothing".

I think you're still stuck on believing that things exist beyond consciousness (or conception, rather), if I recall some of your past posts correctly. If you worked that out then all of this would become clear to you.

I've got to get some sleep, so I may not respond til tomorrow.

Fox... easy on the drugs buddy.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:
Orenholt wrote:In the case of Infinity "not A" simply means "nothing" which affirms that there is only "A".
Actually "not A" means anything and everything that isn't "A", including "nothing".. unless A is "nothing".

Well yes, I didn't disagree that "not A" means anything and everything that isn't "A" including "nothing".

And yes, logic applies to "nothingness" too.
Nothing equals Nothing, Nothing cannot equal not Nothing ("not nothing" is something).
I think you're still stuck on believing that things exist beyond consciousness, if I recall some of your past posts correctly. If you worked that out then all of this would become clear to you.

I've got to get some sleep, so I may not respond til tomorrow.

I've changed my mind about a few things I used to think. Existence is defined by an appearance to an individual. So if I think about something in my mind like a flying green giraffe then it "exists" to me because I have invisioned it in my head as a concept. I also realize that there is only Reality, not individual objects because everything is just one thing so the distinction of a coffee cup from a table is an illusion of the mind.
Last edited by Orenholt on Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: FIGHT!

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Get your position sorted on this:

the fundamental question of all philosophy – should the starting point of logical deduction be the external world of matter considered as existing independently of human consciousness, or should consciousness itself be taken as the starting point, and the external world be considered as dependant upon, relative to, consciousness and thought?

Women tend to be materialistic.
concrete zone or thing-in-itself.

GF is no thing independent of mind,
not a thing or infinite
no thingness from its own side.

to persist in thingifying infinite don't get it.
Locked