Thanks!
That helped quite a bit.
Thanks!
The law of identity holds whether you consider time to be a dimension or not. But, if you consider time to not be a dimension - what is it?analog57 wrote:Yes, physical objects are in a state of flux, in that they change with time. Of course one can see that if time is also a dimension then the thing becomes a changeless in four dimensions. So the law of identity holds for the higher dimensional thing, when time is a dimension. [thing + flux] is timeless. Yet time as a dimension is only a provisional theory, not an absolute truth.
So how is it possible to correlate a timeless analytic truth to our observed physical reality?
It is a necessary truth that you are experiencing something, that you have some perceived reality in which you find yourself. But the content of that reality is, in some respect, arbitrary.I suppose one can, and must, see the combination of mental and physical reality, however limited any "sensed" physical reality may be, as a form of absolute existence, and in that respect, it is necessarily a timeless truth.
What do you mean by "absolute existence"? Does that mean the same thing as "inherent existence"? Are you talking about the existence of an object, or the existence of absolutely true statements?I am forced to agree that there is some form of absolute existence and those who would say otherwise, are politically motivated?
You obviously think about symmetry quite a bit. Can you explain why you say that symmetry subsumes absolutism? It is not at all obvious to me.Of course, any thing that is changeless with respect to transformation is quintessentially a symmetry, and symmetry subsumes any form of absolutism.
2000 odd years later and I am yet to see someone walk on water, no matter my expectations.The reason none of the above mentioned walked on water is that, as far as we know, they did not. If Jesus did not walk on water then the entire lesson of his life is lost. The record of his life would be a meaningless diatribe, an exercise in the futile.
The reasoning behind this conclusion is exclusion. A universe where everything and anything is possible but it cannot happen. In a universe of all possibility - should be expectation of just that.
I can’t believe you would have a go at Peter Pan, then.You are appealing to a half hearted attempt at a cure. Mediocrity does not help anyone - that is what is wrong with fundamental Christian thinking. They appeal to mythological symbolism concerning Jesus and make the case that no one can "be like Jesus". He becomes the Santa Claus of the whole religion.
The true heart of God is an all or nothing proposition. Radical in its experience as well as thought. Pushing the envelope of conventional thinking until it breaks into the realm of 'all possibilities'.
Based on the progress of our discussion so far and the above Kierkgaard quote, I can assume the following:"The world does not want to eliminate Christianity, it is not that straightforward, nor does it have that much character. No, it wants it proclaimed falsely, using eternity to give a flavour to the enjoyment of life."
- Soren Kierkegaard
Because Jesus was seen and heard by thousands of eyewitnesses.
The conversion of substantial regions of the Roman Empire before 100AD.
Well, yeah. I reckon the whole thing was sadly misdiagnosed. Especially since most Christians, at least according to your experience, do not know the definition of sin and salvation despite him.If his record is not true or believable, that would be akin to offering Tylenol to a terminally ill patient. Wonderful gesture but meaningless and powerless.
I am appealing to honesty and integrity. Rather than admitting shortcomings and weaknesses, the attempt is made to reduce Christ to a victim. A victim of the state and history as his record is unreliable. What a legacy for a pure soul.
The intended result of the denegration of the reality of Christ is to lower the requirement so one can live in apathy to pure potential.
Why do not you believe you could resurrect?
My side is that I would like to see a REAL DEBATE between David Quinn and ONE of the three main NPU opponents: Plato, Kitten, or rwill9955 - on neutral territory, of course.MKFaizi wrote:Log,
I read all that was written by David Quinn and others on the forum.
There are always two sides to a story.
What is your side? In English, of course.
Faizi
Relativity speaks of time as being somewhat, but not exactly like a real physical "length" dimension, when multiplied by the speed of light and the square root of negative one. It is empirically verified through experiment. But empirical verification[inductive] is not the same as a truth that follows from the analytic[first principles].DHodges wrote:The law of identity holds whether you consider time to be a dimension or not. But, if you consider time to not be a dimension - what is it?
I think of 'dimension' as being anything that can be linearly measured; can be used as a metric. So for me, time is a dimension by definition.
prince wrote:Yeah, that's really fascinating. Not
What value does it have? Who gives a shit if "Symmetry subsumes absolutism because a simple truth table becomes an invariant symmetry rotation." ?
Bullshit. You don't need absolute truth to be "truly" rational. In your quest for precision, you seem to have completely forgotten that ethics, which is the most important part of philosophy, is rational even though it barely deals with knowledge or truth at all.Justifiable belief, must be more than merely consensus alone.
Well, I think he may well be on to something. If you don't care, then don't read it.prince wrote:What value does it have? Who gives a shit if "Symmetry subsumes absolutism because a simple truth table becomes an invariant symmetry rotation." ?
Why do you say that ethics is the most important part of philosophy?mookestink wrote:In your quest for precision, you seem to have completely forgotten that ethics, which is the most important part of philosophy, is rational even though it barely deals with knowledge or truth at all.
Simple: ethics is the only part of philosophy that non-philosophers care to listen to. :)Why do you say that ethics is the most important part of philosophy?
That's true enough, within the realm of science. If you are asking questions about what a particular state of affairs is, how something works, then that is the way to proceed.analog57 wrote: Thus it seems that in order for any
semblance of true rationality to hold, one must argue that it is not
necessary to have complete truth and knowledge, but to only ask for a
"reasonable assurance", which is bound by a "reasonable probability",
in that our sense perceptions are good guides in the quantitative
verification of the manifest, and ultimately unmanifest landscape of
the perceptual universe.
I think probability theory has a problem in the idea of "random". Probability revolves around random variables. It treats randomness as if it were something tangible, when "randomness" is really a lack of information. Probability theory arose directly out of gambling. The roll of dice can not be determined ahead of time, although strictly speaking it is completely deterministic. Probability takes over where the deterministic model is incomplete.Strangely enough, probability itself is
entirely beholden to tautologies of logic.
Even if we ourselves, are totally deluded
and confused about the specific objects of our sense perception, and
even if our mathematical models of manifest reality are merely all
tautological - which cannot objectively prove themselves true within
themselves [as Godel aptly demonstrated], it is equally true, that it
does not follow that "all is lost" in the search for the actual truth.
What about? The nature of Reality? The limitations of science? The psychology of women?My side is that I would like to see a REAL DEBATE between David Quinn and ONE of the three main NPU opponents: Plato, Kitten, or rwill9955 - on neutral territory, of course.
Symmetry subsumes absolutism because a simple truth table becomes an invariant symmetry rotation.
I think he was trying to point out that you are focusing on an an irrelevant side-issue. Your attempt to use a truth-value table to undermine the concept of absolute truth strikes him as comical. And I agree.prince: What value does it have? Who gives a shit if "Symmetry subsumes absolutism because a simple truth table becomes an invariant symmetry rotation." ?
analog: Anything that is radically at odds with our tidy consensus view of the
universe, is labeled as crankishly absurd by defenders of the
intellectual status quo[defenders of the faith?].
Consequently, "non-absurdity" and the verification/elimination for all possible
existant beliefs, would by necessity entail complete truth, and
therefore, complete knowledge. Thus it seems that in order for any
semblance of true rationality to hold, one must argue that it is not
necessary to have complete truth and knowledge, but to only ask for a
"reasonable assurance", which is bound by a "reasonable probability",
in that our sense perceptions are good guides in the quantitative
verification of the manifest, and ultimately unmanifest landscape of
the perceptual universe.
Strangely enough, probability itself is
entirely beholden to tautologies of logic. We find ourselves rotating on a merry-go-round of ostensibly rational interpretation. Hence, this entails a qualitative understanding and acceptance of our obvious human limitations.
You don't need absolute truth to be "truly" rational.
If you do not know what is ultimately real in life, then how can you know what is the wisest and most rational thing to do?In your quest for precision, you seem to have completely forgotten that ethics, which is the most important part of philosophy, is rational even though it barely deals with knowledge or truth at all.
DavidQuinn000 wrote:Symmetry subsumes absolutism because a simple truth table becomes an invariant symmetry rotation.
But not the absolutism of symmetry, it would seem.