GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin; Given that you do not know something as fundamental as how you distinguish a wave from the rest of the ocean, how can you be certain of your views on other matters? And should you resort to logic, consider that logic is a thing (a mental construction?) that arises in reality and holds no ‘special’ place except if you invest (or project) it with ‘special’ significance and/or value.

In any case, I think it is wonderful that you and I don’t know; it’s liberating!

clyde wrote:..consider that logic is a thing (a mental construction?) that arises in reality and holds no ‘special’ place except if you invest (or project) it with ‘special’ significance and/or value

All logic starts with identification because comparison and distinction are pure logical self-referential processes, even at the simplest most fundamental level we can imagine. Call it proto-logic if you will.

In any case, I think it is wonderful that you and I don’t know; it’s liberating!

That's not true: the truth we really can know is that we're knowing -born out of this continuous knowing, if nothing else. If we wouldn't know that, instead ignorance is born - right there.

Diebert; I was no more stating that we are completely not-knowing than you were stating that we are all knowing. Yes, we know some, but we also do not know some. Accepting our actual condition is liberating. Yes?

Laird: That's not an answer to my question: how do you know that [it's impossible for a line to have only one side]? You say it's "very easy" but how is that?

Kevin: We know it in the same way that that we know that a thing is itself, and not other than itself (ie, A=A).

That's still not an answer: "a thing is itself" - that doesn't tell you anything about that thing. So how do you know the particular details about the impossibility of a line having only one side?

What it really amounts to is "because I can't imagine anything else". Too bad for your lack of imagination, but worse than lack of imagination is hailing it as logical necessity.

I wonder why you can't imagine any plausible alternatives? Oh, hang on, I know after all: mental block.

Laird: As for whether it's impossible for a line to have only one side: I can imagine a two-sided line that has nothing beyond one of the sides.

Kevin: It still has two sides, and each side is a "thing".

The point is not so much whether it has what can be conceptualised as sides, but whether there is actually anything beyond both those sides.

Anyway, it seems to be that you're talking in two dimensions whereas you should be talking in three dimensions, in which case how many sides do you reckon a line to have?

Laird: how would you know that this definition actually applies everywhere?

Kevin: All boundaries are mentally created, and always have two sides.

That's not an answer (explanation), it's an assertion of faith/definition.

Laird: It's entirely possible that at a certain extreme point, the universe stops having what can be defined as boundaries and starts (and ends) having a final limit with nothing beyond it.

Kevin: There would still be two sides to the boundary, and each side is a thing.

There need not be anything beyond the "other" side. So in that case the universe would not after all be infinite.

Laird: Logic can't prove anything ultimately because ultimately it rests on fundamental axioms whose truth is taken as self-evident but in which taking the reasoner might ultimately be mistaken.

Kevin: It's not possible to be mistaken that a thing is itself.

Again, you're talking about identification, not logic.

Kevin: Logic is indeed a necessary part of the process of conscious observation. Without A=A you wouldn't be able to identify anything.

Laird: That's not logic, that's identification.

Kevin: That's all that logic is - identification.

Erm, you're forgetting a whole lotta deduction in there for a start.

Laird: I'm not asking for third-party references, I'm asking for you to describe your experience of the Infinite.

Kevin: You'd have to pay me money to do that. Those other descriptions are good enough.

So you won't describe your experience of the Infinite, and in doing so fail to justify your claim that the Infinite can be "observed". This claim is, anyway, on the face of it ridiculous: the Infinite can be inferred but I can't see how one might observe it. If you wish to prove otherwise, then describe your experience. Otherwise it's just a load of balderdash.

Laird: And it's more than just The All.

Kevin: No, it's just the All.

That's blatantly dishonest arguing by you Kevin (and it's not even arguing, it's plain assertion). You snipped my following reasoning that justified my statement that it's more than just The All, leaving it looking like it was a simple assertion so that your own simple assertion could adequately stand against it. Your assertion would not have stood had you left my reasoning in.

David Quinn wrote:You are still fixated on the finger and ignoring where it is pointing. Everything in the book is the finger pointing. The wisdom to which it is pointing can't be found in the book, just as it can't be found in any book.

The finger is crooked. The crucial arguments of the book are poor. How can I trust where the finger is pointing when it can't even point straight? If the wisdom can't be found in the book, then why does the title of the book contain the word "Wisdom"?

David Quinn wrote:Once a person finds this wisdom, the pointing no longer matters to him. He has successfully fulfilled the function of the pointing. Because of this, the validity or otherwise of the pointing's direction is no longer an issue for him.

The wisdom is dependent on the pointing as you recognise when you write (as I quoted in my last post): "As such, both the conclusion and the core truth live and die together." The validity of the pointing is therefore crucial for him.

Laird: This also happens to be further evidence that you are involved in a process of modelling reality: a "series of truths" about reality that rely upon each other can reasonably be described as a model.

David: They are a series of correctives which comprise the pointing.

"Correctives"? They propose certain facts about reality. They aren't merely taking issue with existing models, they are constructing new ones.

David: As it happens, they can no more be proven false than 1+1=2 can, but again, such things don't really mean anything to me nowadays.

Laird: Oh, just like having other people know that you believe that you're enlightened "doesn't really mean anything to [you] nowadays". Sure, sure. Just like Paul McDermott doesn't care that he's famous, no doubt.

David: It might be true that he doesn't care.

Yeah, just like it might be true that you don't care.

David Quinn wrote:Who are you to judge him?

A thinking, discerning human being.

David Quinn wrote:The trouble is, we can't have both an earliest point and an infinite past at the same time. If an earliest point exists, then the time between that point and the present will be finite. If time extends infinitely into the past, then there can be no earliest point. It's either one or the other, not both.

Since your argument demands both, it is incoherent.

I'll try to state it in a way that you might be able to grasp then:

The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

Laird: However you look at it though, it [the Totality] will be comprised of a fixed number of dimensions. That is a limitation aka boundary. The Totality reasonably meets your definition of a "thing".

David: Since I define a "thing" to be a portion of the Totality, the Totality itself can never be a thing.

You seem to have a different definition of "thing" depending on the occasion. I am more familiar with the definition that runs "a thing is that which is bounded". Regardless, the fact that the Totality as a "block" (as Kevin puts it) is uncaused whereas everything else is caused is paradoxical. That's not to say that it's not the case - I'm inclined to believe that reality at some point fails to conform to our logic - just that it's an anomoly.

DT: You need to think about the concomitance of the unbounded, the undifferentiated and timelessness.

Laird: First of all I think that it's nonsensical to claim that reality is undifferentiated: without differentiation life would be impossible for a start.

DT: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I certainly haven't claimed anything of the sort. As far as I can see above, we were talking about the unbounded, undifferentiated, infinite nature of the concept of totality.

Laird: Well, as Kevin has made clear, he believes that reality and the Totality are one and the same. So when you talk about the "undifferentiated ... nature ... of totality" you're essentially putting up the argument that I took fault with: that "reality is undifferentiated". I don't understand why you're not sure what I'm trying to get at.

DT: Reality and totality are one in the same, necessarily. However, you aren't talking about reality per se, you are talking about that which is real. So here, when you take fault with "reality is undifferentiated", you actually mean that which is real as opposed to reality itself; and of course that which is real is differentiated. Reality itself however, cannot be.

I think that you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. "Reality" vs "that which is real"? Let's turn to dictionary.com for a definition of "reality": "something that is real" (6th definition). Or in other words, "that which is real". But anyway, if you want to make the case, then please explain how you believe this distinction to work.

Dave Toast wrote:This argument is pure reification. The concept of totality is on the very edge of dualism and monism. Its monistic aspects simply cannot be treated dualistically. Reality per se is not a thing in a dualistic sense and cannot be categorised as physically concrete in the same manner. Reality is not that which is real and that which is real is not reality.

Can you please clarify what you're referring to by "this argument"? I've made so many arguments over the past few days that I'm not sure which one in particular you mean right now, but I'm guessing that we're still talking about my argument that a beginningless past is illogical, right?

So if it is not to be considered as in some sense a "thing", then why is the definite article ("the") applied to Totality? Why does Kevin refer to it as a "block"?

Dave Toast wrote:As well as reification, this argument also commits another fallacy of ambiguity, namely composition/division, where one assumes that something that is true of the whole is true of its parts, or vice versa

I don't see how my argument against a beginningless past does that. I'm simply saying that an infinite time cannot be traversed however a beginningless past requires it to have been.

Laird: Secondly, I can go with unboundedness in the spatial dimensions and with timelessness in the forward direction, but it just plain doesn't make sense in the reverse direction. And yes, I have thought about it.

DT: So time in the reverse direction makes sense?

Laird: I suppose that it's a possibility but one that I'm not particularly trying to canvas. Perhaps my phrasing was unfortunate - perhaps I should have said "it just plain doesn't make sense to apply timelessness to the past".

DT: Does it make sense to apply the past or even the future to timelessness? That's what’s happening here. It's a category error.

Hey, you're the one apparently defending past timelessness and now you're calling it a category error. I don't understand your point.

Dave Toast wrote:And unbounded spatial dimensions is impossible too, just like it's impossible for anything finite to be completely boundless in the sense we're talking about.

So you disagree with QRS that the universe is physically infinite?

DT: So there you have it. The rebuttal of your syllogism was related in that it employed and exposed the very same category error you employed, that of limiting limitlessness.

Laird: I don't see how I'm "limiting limitlessness". On the contrary, I'm arguing that limitlessness itself is what makes a nonsense of the idea of a beginningless past.

DT: Then, again, you are misunderstanding the context of limitlessness that we are talking about here. As such, you attempt to apply temporal and topological categories to it, forming fallacious arguments.

The context of limitlessness that I understand to be talked about at least from Kevin's mouth is that physically the universe extends without limit in all directions, temporally it extends infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past.

Dave Toast wrote:The idea of a past cannot be applied to timelessness, never mind a beginningless past or even a beginning. The idea of spatial relations cannot be applied to spacelessness. That’s how you are limiting limitlessness and in doing so, completely misunderstanding what the concept of totality represents.

I think that we have different understandings of what the word "timeless" means in this context. By "timeless" I simply mean a course of time that is unbounded in a certain direction, be that the future or the past.

Dave Toast wrote:I said all this earlier but you snipped it and didn't answer:

I snipped it because it seemed to me to be so far from what I was actually doing and because I thought the rest of my response made it clear that I disagreed with it, but at your prompting I will respond to it now.

Dave Toast wrote:"You keep on applying conceptual boundaries - be they spatial, temporal or whateveral - to the concept of unboundedness. Does that make sense?

I think that it makes sense, but I can't see any other way. It so happens that the universe has these properties of spatial and temporal dimensions. Who can deny this? And when we talk about boundlessness we apply it to those dimensions. What alternative is there? Actually I can imagine another way to apply boundlessness: to the events that occur within the Totality - that every possible event is contained so that the Totality is unbounded with respect to what might happen. But this is quite unsatisfactory because I don't know that it is necessarily true. Some events that we might be able to imagine may just be unreachable due to there being no particular chain of cause and effect that will reach them. So in the end I can only see that we can apply boundlessness to dimensions.

How and why do you propose that I avoid "applying conceptual boundaries ... to the concept of unboundedness"?

Dave Toast wrote:If someone was not understanding how one cannot apply any concept of differentiation (which necessitates limits) whatsoever to the concept of limitlessness, how would you explain it to them beyond pointing them towards a dictionary?"

How would one explain that one was not the first to "differentiate limitlessness" by talking about it in terms of temporal and spatial dimensions: that one was simply arguing on the terms that the originator of a theory (a beginningless past) created?

Kevin: You need to provide a proof that there can be a boundary that contains something, but absolutely doesn't have anything else outside or apart from it.

Laird: On the contrary, I need prove nothing: I am merely putting up an alternative definition to demonstrate that alternatives are possible and that your asserting that the universe mandates that a boundary has two sides has nothing to do with whether the universe actually does mandate that. It is up to you to prove that it does.

Kevin: Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Laird: First of all who said that a boundary was a line? Secondly, how do we know that it's necessary that at the outer limits of the universe there is actually "another side" to the "line"? How do we know that the "line" doesn't just end there? This is not something that can be proved in isolation from reality.

Dave: This is just intellectual dishonesty and arguing for argument’s sake.

It is nothing of the sort.

Dave Toast wrote:Empirically, we know that the universe is expanding, which necessitates something for it to expand into.

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to have considered the possibility that the universe creates as it expands.

Dave Toast wrote:Logically, drawing any boundary necessitates distinction. To be able to draw a distinction, at least two aspects which lie either side of it are necessary. Draw me a distinction that doesn't have at least two aspects distinguished between.

Look, I've already made it clear that I'm not particularly concerned about the definition of a boundary. You can define away all that you like, but whether the definition actually applies to reality is an entirely different question. There might well be an "edge of the universe" that is better characterised by a word with a different definition: a word such as "limit". I'm not saying that this necessarily is the case, because I'm not intellectually dishonest, I'm just saying that it might be the case - something that Kevin with his I-hold-the-absolute-truth-of-reality-in-the-palm-of-my-dogmatic-little-hand attitude fails to acknowledge.

Dave Toast wrote:With regard to your arguments, Kevin is doing you no favours by poetically playing with this ambiguity between monism and dualism, as well as the understanding of the supposed difference between the real of the empirically concrete and the reality of the psychologically concrete. I don’t know, maybe he thinks he’s doing you a favour in some other way.

Kevin's doing me no favours by failing to acknowledge the points that I make, failing to respond to reasonable questions and requests for clarification, and reasserting, without refuting me, arguments that I rebutt. Actually he's doing himself no favours in all of this, because it detracts from his argument more than from mine.

Anyway Dave, you've made your allegiance plain: you're a QRS man through and through, albeit one with an advanced vocabulary.

Laird wrote:So how do you know the particular details about the impossibility of a line having only one side?

A line is defined to have two sides. It's not possible to define a line to have only one side. It's like defining a human being to have nothing outside of themselves (which is of course how most egotists see themselves - there's themselves, and then there's nothing)

The point is not so much whether it has what can be conceptualised as sides, but whether there is actually anything beyond both those sides.

All things exist through conceptualization. If there is nothing beyond a certain boundary, then it can easily be contrasted with that which is on the other side of the boundary. Both are "things". Both are bounded.

Laird: how would you know that this definition actually applies everywhere?

Because logic applies everywhere.

Logic can't prove anything ultimately because ultimately it rests on fundamental axioms whose truth is taken as self-evident but in which taking the reasoner might ultimately be mistaken.

There are no axioms to logic. It is as basic as you can possibly get. A=A doesn't rest on anything, but is the foundation upon which all reasoning is built up.

That's all that logic is - identification.

Erm, you're forgetting a whole lotta deduction in there for a start.

Deduction uses logic. See above.

Laird: I'm not asking for third-party references, I'm asking for you to describe your experience of the Infinite.

My experience is the same as other wise men, so I'm not going to repeat it. I don't believe those descriptions will be any use to you.

Kevin Solway wrote:A line is defined to have two sides. It's not possible to define a line to have only one side. It's like defining a human being to have nothing outside of themselves (which is of course how most egotists see themselves - there's themselves, and then there's nothing)

We can logically deduce the nature of reality, all we need is the glorious English Dictionary, the metaphysicians' Bible. Proof that The Totality is unbounded: page 245, "boundary" defined to have something on either side. Since the Totality cannot have anything on the other side, page 1569, "totality" defined, it is logically impossible for it to be bounded.

Oh thank thee God (Nature, Totality, w/e) for granting us thee English Dictionary in thy perfection, from which we may drawth thee absolute truths.

QRS counter, paraphrase: "The enlightened philosopher defines his own words in his infinite wisdom, he has absolutely no delusional reliance on an English Dictionary, only deluded egoists cannot see through the illusionary nature of said book."

The wonder of being raised in an English society for 20+ years: you no longer need to refer to the dictionary since you have memorized a large enough subset of it.

Christians use logic too.

1. God said homicidal behavior sends one to hell.
2. I don't want to go to hell.
3. Therefore I shall not murder.

Imagine this... logic... working... on... false... premises... leads... to... false... conclusions.... The logic... may be valid... but... the conclusions... are still false....

- (HIDDEN PREMISE) English Dictionary is infallible.

About as valid as:

- (EXPLICIT PREMISE) The Bible is infallible.

I personally make my own definitions, but I arrange it so that they fit with common definitions so that I can communicate with others.

Laird: So how do you know the particular details about the impossibility of a line having only one side?

Kevin: A line is defined to have two sides. It's not possible to define a line to have only one side. It's like defining a human being to have nothing outside of themselves

You're still talking in two dimensions. You ignored my question as to how many sides a line has in three dimensions.

And it is possible to define a line to have only one side: when it is on the edge of a plane beyond which there is nothing.

Laird: The point is not so much whether it has what can be conceptualised as sides, but whether there is actually anything beyond both those sides.

Kevin: All things exist through conceptualization. If there is nothing beyond a certain boundary, then it can easily be contrasted with that which is on the other side of the boundary. Both are "things". Both are bounded.

Actually, no: "nothing" is by definition not a thing. Think about it: "nothing: no-thing".

Laird: how would you know that this definition actually applies everywhere?

Kevin: Because logic applies everywhere.

Firstly, how do you know that? Have you been everywhere to verify this?

Secondly, logic tells us that definitions do not apply simply because we believe that they must - reality determines whether a definition applies or not.

Laird: Logic can't prove anything ultimately because ultimately it rests on fundamental axioms whose truth is taken as self-evident but in which taking the reasoner might ultimately be mistaken.

Kevin: There are no axioms to logic.

Of course there are. One of your implicit axioms is that every region of the universe can be considered to be bounded, where a boundary is that with two sides.

Kevin: That's all that logic is - identification.

Laird: Erm, you're forgetting a whole lotta deduction in there for a start.

Kevin: Deduction uses logic. See above.

Deduction is a part of logic, so clearly logic is a whole lot more than just identification.

Laird: I'm not asking for third-party references, I'm asking for you to describe your experience of the Infinite.

Kevin: My experience is the same as other wise men, so I'm not going to repeat it.

You're not even going to attempt to prove that "observing" the Infinite makes any sense are you? That's because it doesn't make sense. The Infinite can be inferred, but not observed.

Kevin Solway wrote:I personally make my own definitions, but I arrange it so that they fit with common definitions so that I can communicate with others.

This is A) nonsense and B) irrelevant.

A) You make your own definitions? What does this mean... you go out in the bush and start making grunting noises in special patterns to denote different objects? Oh... you use the English Dictionary on all levels except the highest one, and still assume it is infallible.

B) Even if you constructed you own whole web of concepts it would be equally as fallible and worldly as the English Dictionary.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Even if you constructed you own whole web of concepts it would be equally as fallible and worldly as the English Dictionary.

Where is your proof?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Even if you constructed you own whole web of concepts it would be equally as fallible and worldly as the English Dictionary.

Where is your proof?

In history. Humans have constructed the entire English language. To then turn around and try to deduce out "absolute truths" implicit in these definitions made by less intelligent humans is laughable. If you knew the nature of ultimate reality in the first place you wouldn't have to write the Dictionary or use logic on it to try and figure it out.

As well, the burden of proof of the validity of your definitions is the main part of any argument you put forth (ie, all your arguments on absolute truth). So you need to prove otherwise for your arguments to be accepted, it is not my burden of proof.

Laird wrote:Anyway Dave, you've made your allegiance plain: you're a QRS man through and through, albeit one with an advanced vocabulary.

This is so revealing mate. And it marks the end of our conversation. I don't have the patience nor the inclination of my benevolent idols.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Even if you constructed you own whole web of concepts it would be equally as fallible and worldly as the English Dictionary.

Where is your proof?

In history. Humans have constructed the entire English language. To then turn around and try to deduce out "absolute truths" implicit in these definitions made by less intelligent humans is laughable.

You are mistaking my own concepts with those commonly held by the population.

While I might use the same words as other people, so as to relate to other people, there is always a significant twist that I give to any concept. For example, my concept of a "thing" can be related to by most people, and yet it has a factor that is entirely different to common usage (namely, it has a context in reality). All my words are like that.

Most people see through distorted lenses, and so all their concepts are distorted. But I don't see through distorted lenses.

If you knew the nature of ultimate reality in the first place you wouldn't have to write the Dictionary or use logic on it to try and figure it out.

You have to define things if you want to communicate or think. And if you have concepts then you are automatically using logic.

I personally don't have to "try to figure it out", but other people do. David has described the process in terms of using tools and then discarding them once they have served their purpose.

It is not my burden of proof.

Any claim requires a proof.

Kevin Solway wrote:There are no axioms to logic. It is as basic as you can possibly get. A=A doesn't rest on anything, but is the foundation upon which all reasoning is built up.

Kevin; You make the same claim that David makes and I'll respond the same way:

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:All it involves is affirming A=A. Does affirming A=A require belief? No, it doesn't.

Actually, yes, it does. That little symbol "=" represents the concept of equality or identity. And there is the implied concepts of truth and falsity. So, before one can affirm A=A, one must hold a number of concepts (and definitions which will include other concepts) as themselves having validity.

It seems that "A=A" is not self-existent. But that really should not come as a surprise.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are mistaking my own concepts with those commonly held by the population.
...
Most people see through distorted lenses, and so all their concepts are distorted. But I don't see through distorted lenses.

In other words: you are enlightened, I am not, therefore you are right, I am wrong. Awesome argument.

Kevin Solway wrote:You have to define things if you want to communicate or think. And if you have concepts then you are automatically using logic.

The issue here is in magically jumping from things you can define by pointing at to abstract concepts and "beyonds" that cannot be pointed at, yet you insist can somehow still be accurately defined.

Laird wrote:You're still talking in two dimensions.

I've previously explained that it doesn't matter how many dimensions there are, there are always two sides to a boundary, so a boundary functions as a line.

All things exist through conceptualization. If there is nothing beyond a certain boundary, then it can easily be contrasted with that which is on the other side of the boundary. Both are "things". Both are bounded.

Actually, no: "nothing" is by definition not a thing. Think about it: "nothing: no-thing".

Whatever is bounded is a thing - by definition. It might contain nothing, just as an empty box.

Because logic applies everywhere.

Firstly, how do you know that?

Through logic.

Have you been everywhere to verify this?

Logic is used to verify empirical things, not the other way around.

There are no axioms to logic.

One of your implicit axioms is that every region of the universe can be considered to be bounded, where a boundary is that with two sides.

That is a truth that is deduced using logic. It is not an axiom of logic.

Deduction is a part of logic

No, deduction uses logic. There's no deduction involved in "A=A".

The Infinite can be inferred, but not observed.

The Infinite is everywhere, and wise men experience it in the same manner that you can experience the wind.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Most people see through distorted lenses, and so all their concepts are distorted. But I don't see through distorted lenses.

In other words: you are enlightened, I am not, therefore you are right, I am wrong. Awesome argument.

I'm only pointing out that you can't assume that I'm using concepts in exactly the same way that other people do.

Kevin Solway wrote:You have to define things if you want to communicate or think. And if you have concepts then you are automatically using logic.

The issue here is in magically jumping from things you can define by pointing at to abstract concepts and "beyonds" that cannot be pointed at, yet you insist can somehow still be accurately defined.

If you know for sure that something is "beyond" then you know something definite about it, and can rightly point to it as being "beyond".

Laird: Anyway Dave, you've made your allegiance plain: you're a QRS man through and through, albeit one with an advanced vocabulary.

Dave: This is so revealing mate. And it marks the end of our conversation. I don't have the patience nor the inclination of my benevolent idols.

I'm sorry if I have offended you Dave but I simply wanted to point out that you seem to have allied yourself with folks whose reasoning I hold to be suspect to say the least and that that allegiance (error of judgment IMO) is going to necessarily taint you in my eyes (because IMO your judgment is lacking). I'm still interested to see your response to my post though.

Kevin: All things exist through conceptualization. If there is nothing beyond a certain boundary, then it can easily be contrasted with that which is on the other side of the boundary. Both are "things". Both are bounded.

Laird: Actually, no: "nothing" is by definition not a thing. Think about it: "nothing: no-thing".

Kevin: Whatever is bounded is a thing - by definition. It might contain nothing, just as an empty box.

I'm not talking about a something that contains nothing, I'm talking about nothing itself, uncontained: a complete absence.

Kevin: Because logic applies everywhere.

Laird: Firstly, how do you know that?

Kevin: Through logic.

Let's examine that. Let's take as our primary assumption that logic applies where you and I are right now. Now let's examine through logic whether logic applies everywhere else too. There are two possibilities:
1. Logic applies everywhere.
2. Logic does not apply to some parts of the universe.

Now you are saying that through logic we can ascertain that (1) is true and that (2) is false. Please describe how we go about that, bearing in mind that we still haven't even validated our primary assumption yet.

Laird: Have you been everywhere to verify this?

Kevin: Logic is used to verify empirical things, not the other way around.

And there is the crux of your delusion. In fact empirical things trump logic. You might come up with the fanciest logical deduction possible but there is always the chance that reality just ain't like that.

Kevin: There are no axioms to logic.

Laird: One of your implicit axioms is that every region of the universe can be considered to be bounded, where a boundary is that with two sides.

Kevin: That is a truth that is deduced using logic. It is not an axiom of logic.

You haven't deduced it at all. A deduction follows from premises. You have no premises prior to this one: this is your starting premise.

Laird: Deduction is a part of logic

Kevin: No, deduction uses logic. There's no deduction involved in "A=A".

How many times do I have to repeat to you: "A=A" is identification, not logic. Yes, you need to be able to identify to think logically but it is not all that there is to logic. Logic also consists of processes such as deduction and inference. But you don't want to believe me, so let's again go to dictionary.com, whose first definition of "logic" is: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " See, nothing about "A=A" or "identification": it's more about principles of inference.

Laird: The Infinite can be inferred, but not observed.

Kevin: The Infinite is everywhere, and wise men experience it in the same manner that you can experience the wind.

More assertion without a hint of substantiating argument. Leading to Reason Number 7 Why It Is A Waste Of Time To Debate With Kevin Solway:
7. He will make blanket assertions without substantiation and will expect them to be accepted as his argument.

And after ruminating on some of your past snippings of the most important parts of what I write, I also present Reason Number 8 Why It Is A Waste Of Time To Debate With Kevin Solway:
8. He will often omit or ignore the strongest and most important parts of your argument and choose instead to engage with more peripheral or introductory remarks.

Dave Toast is his own man (as is Dave Hodges). He is no follower, no poor learner of QRS teachings. He aint like disciple Paul in relation to Jesus, as Paul was essentially mindless and put ego related interpretations that made what Jesus said to him into something else.

In relation to this thread, I'm actually seeing faults on both sides - though i haven't bothered to follow it in depth so as to get argumental progression.

Kevin is being too fucking guruish, he is not always wording things in a way that is sufficiently clear, though this may be because of going over the same thing multiple times. You however, are being argumentative, for arguments sake. I would have drawn a no-further-response line to some of your comebacks, though some of them are fine.

The examination of the concept of boundary is is fine, but don't get too strung up on what a line is. Actually on this point, can you see an immediate unavoidable duality merely by the existance of a line? In any duality there are two sides. In any form of existence there are two sides. A thing is defined by what it is not to an equal degree to what it is.

Laird wrote:I'm not talking about a something that contains nothing, I'm talking about nothing itself, uncontained: a complete absence.

Yep, if there's any point at which there is not nothing, there is therefore a boundary separating two "things" - by definition.

we still haven't even validated our primary assumption yet.

You can't validate logic, as the only way you could do it is with logic itself.

Empirical things trump logic.

Where is your proof?

You have no premises prior to this one: this is your starting premise.

I begin with A=A.

"A=A" is identification, not logic.

Simply repeating something doesn't make it so.

dictionary.com, whose first definition of "logic" is: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "

That is a specialized use of the term "logic".

"Science" is a system of knowledge, but the logic I am speaking of is not a system of knowledge. It is the basis of knowledge itself.

Regarding boundaries, you should consider this: If it were possible for there to be a boundary with only one side then what you would have is a self-existent thing - that is, an independently existent thing. Do you not see how this is impossible?

Deep down you are trying to justify the existence of your ego. If it is possible for there to be a self-existent universe, then it is possible for there to be a self-existent ego.

Jamesh wrote:Dave Toast is his own man (as is Dave Hodges). He is no follower, no poor learner of QRS teachings.

I may have misjudged him then.

Jamesh wrote:You however, are being argumentative, for arguments sake. I would have drawn a no-further-response line to some of your comebacks, though some of them are fine.

I guess sometimes it takes me a bit of engagement to work out exactly what I find wrong with what's being put to me, so sometimes I don't quite hit the mark on the first attempt.

Jamesh wrote:The examination of the concept of boundary is is fine, but don't get too strung up on what a line is. Actually on this point, can you see an immediate unavoidable duality merely by the existance of a line? In any duality there are two sides. In any form of existence there are two sides. A thing is defined by what it is not to an equal degree to what it is.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I don't think that I agree with your final sentence though. But sure, a line exists in a context, so there are things that contribute to its existence such as the notions of distance and space. In that sense I agree that it involves a duality.