GENIUS FORUMS

dejavu wrote:The context I took it from did nothing for it.

Don't blame me for your shit not standing up by itself.

It's called structure. I wonder if you're this much of a bitch in person. I'd advise you to ask the administrators to change your screen name to your real name; it would be beneficial for you and everyone else. It's already hard enough for me to take serious people who use silly alias'.

dejavu wrote:Well, go on then, I dare you to try and put it back in 'context'.

Are you retarded? I already made a perfectly good statement that has it in context. Don't come demanding things from me because you're too dumb and/or lazy to know what you're doing.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:Ok, but this permits a bounded totality, does it not? I can imagine a bounded totality, and sure, cut it up infinitely. But it's still bounded (finite).

But stop right there for a second. How do you even know for certain that something can be infinitely indivisible? Isn't it possible that I could divide, divide, divide, and then finally be left with two indivisible particles?

I think we talked about this before. I told you that whether or not we ever figure out how to "physically" divide something doesn't matter. What matters is that we can always mentally divide an appearance in half, then we can mentally divide that half in half, then divide that half of a half in half, ad infinitum, hence The Infinite.

Ok, I'm starting to see the significance of your point. But wait a second.....haven't you ever seen something so small that it was impossible to divide with your mind? I'm talking about the little speck you might see on the cover or page of a book. Just the most remotest of specks, barely imperceptible. Now, you might suggest a magnifying glass or a microscope, however, how small can you probe until you reach a point where you can't zoom in any further? How can we know for sure that there isn't some law which prevents specks from being enlarged by magnification? Perhaps it's possible to reach a point where magnification is impossible, and the smallest things you can see are these specks, but these specks cant be divided, because they are merely one dimensional points without any discernible place to draw a line.

Loki wrote:Perhaps it's possible to reach a point where magnification is impossible, and the smallest things you can see are these specks, but these specks cant be divided, because they are merely one dimensional points without any discernible place to draw a line.

You're needlessly letting the limitations of empirical observation interfere with your ability to understand the logic that underpins all things. No matter how small something appears, nothing is stopping me from imagining it up close so I can divide it over and over again to infinity. The same thing would apply to an object so big that we can't get far enough away from it to see the whole thing, because I can always bypass empirical observation by forming a more useful conception of the object that allows me to double it's size or divide it in half as many times as I want. Not to mention that if we can't perceive, imagine, and ultimately conceptualize something for whatever reason, then by definition it does not exist making it a non-issue.

If we know we know what we must know, then why do we still desire to live and exist? Once you've solved a math problem, do you continue solving it?

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:Perhaps it's possible to reach a point where magnification is impossible, and the smallest things you can see are these specks, but these specks cant be divided, because they are merely one dimensional points without any discernible place to draw a line.

You're needlessly letting the limitations of empirical observation interfere with your ability to understand the logic that underpins all things.

My intention is to create a hypothetical that may be possible. The hypothetical is there are these specks which are essentially point-like. They don't obey laws in the way all other things we know of do. For instance, when you try to zoom in, they don't get any bigger. They exist in this constant state of ambiguity.

I agree it's silly, but it's within the realm of possibility. Is it not?

So your point about how we can imagine it up close is not sound, because the very nature of this thing I'm talking about might be that it doesn't have a shape that can be visualized. It's not spherical, or a cube, or anything with discernible width or height or depth. It's just point-like.

Loki wrote:My intention is to create a hypothetical that may be possible. The hypothetical is there are these specks which are essentially point-like. They don't obey laws in the way all other things we know of do. For instance, when you try to zoom in, they don't get any bigger. They exist in this constant state of ambiguity.

I agree it's silly, but it's within the realm of possibility. Is it not?

It's not that your hypothetical is silly, but you're not really understanding exactly what it is you're trying to prove by coming up with it. I mean, the only thing you can logically prove with this hypothetical is that things gain their existence when we concieve of them, which is fine as long as you aren't trying to prove anything more or less. Either way, it certainly doesn't prove that we can't view it as three combined specks or half a speck or .01% of a speck, or maybe instead of a speck, a smudge. What you seem to be implying is that we can't possibly conceive of it in a different manner (when it can so easily be conceived of any way we want) illogically providing this hypothetical object with a kind of inherent existence.

Loki wrote:So your point about how we can imagine it up close is not sound, because the very nature of this thing I'm talking about might be that it doesn't have a shape that can be visualized.

Whether or not we can visualize something doesn't mean we aren't giving it an identity, identity being far more fundamental and important to what I'm pointing out to you. Identity and conception arise simultaneously, and these identities/conceptions are our subjective carvings of the Totality. Carvings which them selves can be carved up an infinite number of ways. The fact that you are able to talk about this hypothetical thing means you already in a way "visualized it" by giving it an identity. If you couldn't do that you wouldn't be able to talk about it in the first place. Hypothetical thing with strange properties = hypothetical thing with strange properties. A=A, simple as that.

Loki wrote:It's not spherical, or a cube, or anything with discernible width or height or depth. It's just point-like.

It's false to imply that when we conceive of things that are spherical, cube like, or have 2 or 3 dimensions they are inherently more or less meaningful than the things we don't conceive of in such a way. Fundamentally all things exist the same way.

Loki,

Physic's Theories also support this idea. A particle or photon etc. can be divided infinitely, but will never reach absolute 0.

we cannot know we don't know, because then we know.

an elf is only useful until his master dies, then he is useless.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:My intention is to create a hypothetical that may be possible. The hypothetical is there are these specks which are essentially point-like. They don't obey laws in the way all other things we know of do. For instance, when you try to zoom in, they don't get any bigger. They exist in this constant state of ambiguity.

I agree it's silly, but it's within the realm of possibility. Is it not?

It's not that your hypothetical is silly, but you're not really understanding exactly what it is you're trying to prove by coming up with it.

I'm trying to prove the possibility that there are things in the universe which cannot be divided any further.

I mean, the only thing you can logically prove with this hypothetical is that things gain their existence when we concieve of them,

What if I were to insist to you that this speck exists independent of the mind? Why would that be wrong?

Either way, it certainly doesn't prove that we can't view it as three combined specks

I don't see how viewing it as 3 combined specks proves the infinite. 3 combined specks is still the finite.

or half a speck or .01% of a speck,

ok, this I find interesting! For some reason, this point really strikes me as key.

When I look at a speck, it takes up space by definition. I will go that far. But what if the space is finite? I realize with numbers there is no limit to how small you can go, but does math/numbers really apply to reality?

or maybe instead of a speck, a smudge. What you seem to be implying is that we can't possibly conceive of it in a different manner (when it can so easily be conceived of any way we want) illogically providing this hypothetical object with a kind of inherent existence.

It seems like your view is that "the imagination" is reality. It almost seems like your saying that what we imagine happening is more true then what is really happening.

Loki wrote: The fact that you are able to talk about this hypothetical thing means you already in a way "visualized it" by giving it an identity. If you couldn't do that you wouldn't be able to talk about it in the first place. Hypothetical thing with strange properties = hypothetical thing with strange properties. A=A, simple as that.

yeah, but this hypothetical thing, since it has no discernible shape, can't be divided.

Loki wrote: It's false to imply that when we conceive of things that are spherical, cube like, or have 2 or 3 dimensions they are inherently more or less meaningful than the things we don't conceive of in such a way. Fundamentally all things exist the same way.

A thing which lacks discernible dimension seems significantly different in that it can't meaningfully be divided.

Loki wrote:I'm trying to prove the possibility that there are things in the universe which cannot be divided any further.

This is logically impossible because that would imply that boundaries and the things they encompass are inherent, when in fact they are not because at any moment we can change the boundaries of something by redefining it in an infinite number of ways.

Loki wrote:What if I were to insist to you that this speck exists independent of the mind? Why would that be wrong?

Yes that would be wrong. Even if we imagined a thing that exists independent of the mind, ultimately we're still imagining it with our mind. This can't be escaped and you can't get around it. A thing, by definition, can only be said to exist if it is being conceived by a mind, so if no mind is conceiving a thing, then that thing doesn't actually exist.

Loki wrote:I don't see how viewing it as 3 combined specks proves the infinite. 3 combined specks is still the finite.

Right, but there are an infinite number of ways to define the finite, which is why we call The Infinite, The Infinite.

Loki wrote:ok, this I find interesting! For some reason, this point really strikes me as key.

I'm not surprised to hear you say this because the example of mine that peaked your interest here has to do with "going smaller" rather than "going bigger". You seem to be getting way too caught up in how small a conception is rather than how big, or how fast, or slow, or it's color, or smell, whether you can reach out and touch it, or anything else. Ultimately all these properties are equally significant.

Loki wrote:When I look at a speck, it takes up space by definition. I will go that far. But what if the space is finite? I realize with numbers there is no limit to how small you can go, but does math/numbers really apply to reality?

It's not about the numbers, it goes much deeper than that. It's about the fact that the way we define the world around us and how we conceive of it is flexible with infinite possibilities. Being that this is the way things are, it is logically impossible for us to believe that an object's existence is absolute, independent, and inherent.

Loki wrote:It seems like your view is that "the imagination" is reality. It almost seems like your saying that what we imagine happening is more true then what is really happening.

What I'm saying is that fundamentally all things exist the same way, and whether or not the things exist only in our imagination doesn't matter.

Loki wrote:yeah, but this hypothetical thing, since it has no discernible shape, can't be divided.

Having no discernible shape does not change the fact of the matter that if a thing exists, it has boundaries and properties by definition. These boundaries and properties are relative, uninherent, based solely on how we are slicing and dicing the Totality, and can be redefined at anytime.

Loki wrote:A thing which lacks discernible dimension seems significantly different in that it can't meaningfully be divided.

No matter how crazy, radical, or out of this world something appears, it's still fundamentally appearing the same way everything else does. If you really do understand A=A, you would agree that all things, at base, fundamentally appear (exist) the same way. Do you agree that all things fundamentally appear the same way?

How many bites does it take for a piece of pizza to no longer to be considered a piece of pizza?

Depends on what you define a piece of pizza as.

my point, pizza merely being an all-encompassing example.

Nick Treklis:

What I'm saying is that fundamentally all things exist the same way, and whether or not the things exist only in our imagination doesn't matter.

Carmel:

What do you mean by "whether or not the things exist only in out imagination doesn't matter."? Are you applying this to all imaginings?

dejavu wrote: If a tree falls in a forest and there's no-one around to hear it...

...then there's no-one around to hear it.

And the only way to know about this particular tree would be to hear it fall. Ergo, there's only indifference left towards the tree's potential existence. Unless you want to make noise about it yourself.

Carmel wrote:What do you mean by "whether or not the things exist only in out imagination doesn't matter."? Are you applying this to all imaginings?

Yes. All things, whether we perceive them with our five senses, or solely with our imagination, fundamentally exist the exact same way.

dejavu wrote:Faulty logic. This isn't about its existence "by definition", or whether or not it "can only be
said to" exist,---but its very existence.

You're invoking a kind of existence beyond the mind here, or a realm in which things inherently exist. This in fact would be faulty logic as I've already shown numerous times.

i've always thought things begin and end in the mind. although we can imagine that things 'exist' outside of our perceptions, if our mind cannot conceive what the other things are, then they don't exist. i'd ask, how can you even think there's other things that exist outside of our perceptions if you can't even imagine what they are? the mind is the only thing that truly exists, all else are products of the mind.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:I'm trying to prove the possibility that there are things in the universe which cannot be divided any further.

This is logically impossible because that would imply that boundaries and the things they encompass are inherent,

No. It only implies that the thing in question is too small and ambiguous to discern any form at all. Division requires form.

at any moment we can change the boundaries of something by redefining it in an infinite number of ways.

Can you do this with the hypothetical speck? Please demonstrate.

This can't be escaped and you can't get around it. A thing, by definition, can only be said to exist if it is being conceived by a mind,

What about the totality? Doesn't that exist?

so if no mind is conceiving a thing, then that thing doesn't actually exist.

I am not able to grasp this clearly, but intuitively I tend to agree.

Loki wrote:ok, this I find interesting! For some reason, this point really strikes me as key.

I'm not surprised to hear you say this because the example of mine that peaked your interest here has to do with "going smaller" rather than "going bigger".

Well, there reason I shy away from "going bigger" is because the totality seems quite possibly finite to me, rather than formless.

You seem to be getting way too caught up in how small a conception is rather than how big, or how fast, or slow, or it's color, or smell, whether you can reach out and touch it, or anything else. Ultimately all these properties are equally significant.

Fast, slow, color, smell, I don't see how those things can demonsrate the infinite. can you give an example?

Loki wrote:When I look at a speck, it takes up space by definition. I will go that far. But what if the space is finite? I realize with numbers there is no limit to how small you can go, but does math/numbers really apply to reality?

It's not about the numbers, it goes much deeper than that. It's about the fact that the way we define the world around us and how we conceive of it is flexible with infinite possibilities.

ok, but how can I know this for certain?! You are asserting this as the case, but you aren't giving any proof!

Nick wrote: all things, at base, fundamentally appear (exist) the same way. Do you agree that all things fundamentally appear the same way?

I would if it wasn't for that damn speck! The speck bothers me because I can't see close enough to make a division.


*

The gone finds the real through the magnum eclipse.

I found a magnum of Eclipse and am really gone.

___________________
slept in the subway

dejavu:
Nick's trying to say that all things exist, that existence is common to all things ...

...but it comes out wrong. He puts it: "fundamentally all things exist in the same way"---which is not true.


"The absolute" is an error. "Ultimate reality" is another, but the funniest, at least to me, is the misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'inherent'. lol

Carmel:
I couldn't agree with you more.

Even if we agreed, for the sake of argument that A=A is an "absolute" truth, the mistake some people make is that they don't aknowledge that once a person starts speculating about the meaning of A=A, then they have now left the realm of the "absolute" and are in the realm of the subjective, speculative, imaginary or even delusional. Any conclusions that are reached from such speculations are merely opinion. If they state them as fact, they are no longer philosophizing, but rather preaching. It reminds somewhat of the religion of Universalism, whereby they employ the concept of correspondence to their philosophical musings...or the Hermetic philosophy "As above, so below; As below, so above"

That said, I'm not opposed to such speculations, in fact, I enjoy engaging in them myself, but they should be aknowledged for what they are.

Loki wrote:No. It only implies that the thing in question is too small and ambiguous to discern any form at all. Division requires form.

All things that exist have form. The speck's boundaries, and thus it's form, are generated by everything it is not, which is fundamentally no different than how everything else gains it's existence.

Loki wrote:

at any moment we can change the boundaries of something by redefining it in an infinite number of ways.

Can you do this with the hypothetical speck? Please demonstrate.

It's not changing our perception that's important, it's changing our conception that means everything here. And as I've explained over and over there is literally nothing stopping us from endlessly changing our conception of things if we choose to do so. Just because something presents what appears to be a static image does not mean we can't change our conception of it.

Loki wrote:What about the totality? Doesn't that exist?

The Totality is incapable of possessing form by definition, so it doesn't really mean anything to say it exists if by exist we mean to appear like all finite objects do. It gives rise to the things that do exist, the Totality itself does not, yet we are always experiencing it.

dejavu wrote:

dejavu: If a tree falls in a forest and there's no-one around to hear it ... then there's no-one around to hear it.

Diebert: And the only way to know about this particular tree would be to hear it fall.

The only way?

You could try to visit an actual large forest and sit there waiting for that sound of a falling tree to occur. Then stand up and look for it! Perhaps you're thinking about using other senses or technologies to detect falling trees? It would change the phrasing but not the meaning of the riddle though, the whole point being the restriction to one sense to make a general point.

dejavu wrote:... the universe possesses endless form.

A form can never be endless, by definition. And if you mean an endless variation in form: it's impossible to know that for sure.

who is to say the tree even fell, but instead was always like that? we can truly question everything that exists, and can never be sure on anything. every answer can be questioned just as every question can be answered. (except for the sophist's way of tricky phrasing)