GENIUS FORUMS

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:As long as your so-called 'understanding of Existence' and 'understanding of absolute truth' are themselves forms(aka finite phenomena), which you seemed to agree they are, then these understandings would, simply by default, be known by someone who knew all forms.

I don't like using the words form and finite phenomena interchangeably because logical (absolute) truths are not what I would define as a form. Form is something I can experience through the five physical senses,

Ok, but I don't see that that overcomes my point.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:The bike is the parts. If you perceive all the parts of the bike then you perceive the bike. And all the parts can be perceived without recourse to anything external to the bike. We're going in circles.....

Regardless, the bike would still need a non-bike to contrast with in order to mean anything (posses form). Whether it's empty space or anything else doesn't matter, as long as there is something else it is not.

I've shown why and how the bike is known, I don't see anything of substance in your argument against it - you just seem to be mindlessly repeating a mantra "there must be something else to contrast it against."

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:I'm not trying to contrast the bike as a whole with one of its parts - I'm proposing contrasting parts with parts, that's what I've been saying all along.

Then the bike ceases to exist as a whole bike once you begin contrasting it's individual parts, e.g. it becomes a frame and two wheels.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because you don't believe it's possible to simultaneously contrast more than two things at a time? The bike exists as all the parts that make up the bike, they all exist and are all perceived and all contrasted simultaneously.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:You can know all the parts by contrasting parts against other parts, and once you know all the parts you know the whole - because the whole is the collection of all the parts.

Ok, but it doesn't work this way with the Totality, because the parts (finite phenomena) are infinite, i.e. there is no beginning and no end to their occurrences due to the nature of causality.

That's contradictory, you've said that finite phenomena are infinite.

Jason wrote:Ok, but I don't see that that overcomes my point.

I wasn't trying to because. Besides that, it's pure fantasy you're talking about.

Jason wrote:I've shown why and how the bike is known

No, you haven't. You are only telling half the story by describing it's parts. For something to exist it not only requires parts, it requires something else it is not. Your fictional "bike" that can some how exist completely on its own is another fantasy you are indulging in.

Jason wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:I'm not trying to contrast the bike as a whole with one of its parts - I'm proposing contrasting parts with parts, that's what I've been saying all along.

Then the bike ceases to exist as a whole bike once you begin contrasting it's individual parts, e.g. it becomes a frame and two wheels.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because you don't believe it's possible to simultaneously contrast more than two things at a time? The bike exists as all the parts that make up the bike, they all exist and are all perceived and all contrasted simultaneously.

I'm talking about A=A, a thing can not be two things simultaneously. If you want to define the frame and the wheels of a bike as two separate forms, you are necessarily no longer defining it as a bike, i.e. the bike ceases to exist because you are no longer projecting the proper boundaries on to reality.

Jason wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:You can know all the parts by contrasting parts against other parts, and once you know all the parts you know the whole - because the whole is the collection of all the parts.

Ok, but it doesn't work this way with the Totality, because the parts (finite phenomena) are infinite, i.e. there is no beginning and no end to their occurrences due to the nature of causality.

That's contradictory, you've said that finite phenomena are infinite.

Pay attention. The process by which finite phenomena are created is infinite thanks to the nature of causality. Meaning that finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed, meaning there is no way one could "know all finite phenomena" because they do not exist the way you think they do, e.g. inherently.

Nick,

Pay attention. The process by which finite phenomena are created is infinite thanks to the nature of causality. Meaning that finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed

Please remind me, how is it that we can know for certain that there is no such thing as indestructible, indivisible particles at some level, somewhere in the universe?

Excuse me, Nick, while I barge in with a question.

Please remind me, how is it that we can know for certain that there is no such thing as indestructible, indivisible particles at some level, somewhere in the universe?

I'm sure that's a very common fallacy. Trevor? Elizabeth? DHodges?

What reason do you have for believing in them that's better than the reason another might have for believing in an omnibenevolent alien god?

Leyla Shen wrote:Excuse me, Nick, while I barge in with a question.

Please remind me, how is it that we can know for certain that there is no such thing as indestructible, indivisible particles at some level, somewhere in the universe?

I'm sure that's a very common fallacy. Trevor? Elizabeth? DHodges?

It's not a fallacy, it's a reasonable question.

Leyla Shen wrote:What reason do you have for believing in them that's better than the reason another might have for believing in an omnibenevolent alien god?

It's not a question of his belief, he's simply raising the possibility of their existence, which - if such a possibility exists (and I can see no reason why it wouldn't) - would mean that categorical statements as to the non-existence of such particles were logically untenable. But you're not making any such categorical statements, are you?

It's not a fallacy, it's a reasonable question.

Well, well. What an unexpected surprise – both the who and the what…

You really have a problem with the whole burden of proof thing, don’t’ you?

The fact that you can’t know whether some “thing” X does not exist for certain (!) somewhere on some level has no relevance to what can be reasoned with certainty and is therefore fucking irrelevant. Gerrit?

Leyla Shen wrote:You really have a problem with the whole burden of proof thing, don’t’ you?

Neither I - nor, as I understand it, Loki - are making any claims as to the existence of anything. I am simply concurring with him as to what's possible. I have no burden of proof.

Leyla Shen wrote:The fact that you can’t know whether some “thing” X does not exist for certain (!) somewhere on some level has no relevance to what can be reasoned with certainty and is therefore fucking irrelevant. Gerrit?

You can't reason for certainty that "all things are infinitely divisible" if the possibility that an ultimately indivisible entity exists, so it is very much relevant.

Leyla Shen wrote:You really have a problem with the whole burden of proof thing, don’t’ you?

The fact that you can’t know whether some “thing” X does not exist for certain (!) somewhere on some level has no relevance to what can be reasoned with certainty

Reasoned with certainty?

Just look at what Nick said!

Nick wrote: The process by which finite phenomena are created is infinite thanks to the nature of causality. Meaning that finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed

Where's the certainty here? How can he really be sure?

Loki wrote:Please remind me, how is it that we can know for certain that there is no such thing as indestructible, indivisible particles at some level, somewhere in the universe?

Because the ultimate divider is consciousness, and it can divide, define, and project boundaries however it wants. Just because we don't have the technology to split something up in a "physical manner" in no way means it can't logically be divided, and really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. See below for a further explanation.

Loki wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:The process by which finite phenomena are created is infinite thanks to the nature of causality. Meaning that finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed

Where's the certainty here? How can he really be sure?

Because object A at point B in time is not the same as object A at point C in time, and the moments in time can be infinitely divided, meaning no entity is fixed or inherent.

(One of many, many possibile forms of) The Easter Bunny wrote:

You can't reason for certainty that "all things are infinitely divisible… [snip, because the rest is an irrelevant red herring]"

I don’t need to. I can reason that all things are finite, just like Nick has.

Do you have an actual counterargument or not?

Leyla Shen wrote: I don’t need to. I can reason that all things are finite, just like Nick has.

Nick has gone much further than that.

I'm not sure that he has, Loki. Perhaps you could elaborate on how far beyond that he has gone, and to where.

An as interesting mental aside to this discussion, I think, how many indestructible, indivisible particles would a thing, even a universe, need to be a thing (or a universe) and why? Or alternatively, what is the finite/infinite particle ratio for any given finite thing?

Leyla Shen wrote:I can reason that all things are finite, just like Nick has.

Do you have an actual counterargument or not?

I'm not interested in arguing over that. I was simply commenting on your response to Loki's question: that his question was a fallacy, which I don't think that it was. I do agree with you, though, that, as you seem to point out in one of your other posts, it was not entirely responsive to what Nick wrote, or at least not obviously so. Nick seemed to be talking about finitude and then Loki brought up indivisibility. If what you meant by "what can be reasoned about with certainty" is what Nick was discussing, then I accept that Loki's response might (arguably) be labelled "irrelevant".

You might be getting some eggs this Easter after all.

guest_of_logic wrote: I do agree with you, though, that, as you seem to point out in one of your other posts, it was not entirely responsive to what Nick wrote, or at least not obviously so. Nick seemed to be talking about finitude and then Loki brought up indivisibility. If what you meant by "what can be reasoned about with certainty" is what Nick was discussing, then I accept that Loki's response might (arguably) be labelled "irrelevant".

What?! Give me a break!

Nick wrote:

finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed

Finite phenomena are constantly being created and destroyed?

An indivisible, indestructible particle CANNOT be created and destroyed by definition.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:Please remind me, how is it that we can know for certain that there is no such thing as indestructible, indivisible particles at some level, somewhere in the universe?

Because the ultimate divider is consciousness, and it can divide, define, and project boundaries however it wants.

BIG difference between projecting your imagination on a thing, and actually physically dividing the thing.

Loki wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:The process by which finite phenomena are created is infinite thanks to the nature of causality. Meaning that finite phenomena is constantly being created and destroyed in every moment for eternity. Meaning that no finite entity is fixed

Where's the certainty here? How can he really be sure?

Because object A at point B in time is not the same as object A at point C in time

Why not?

and the moments in time can be infinitely divided

Can a block of cheese be infinitely divided?

No, obviously not. Eventually you're going to be left with atoms (thus cheese in finite).

So why should I believe that time is not finite?

Loki wrote:Finite phenomena are constantly being created and destroyed?

An indivisible, indestructible particle CANNOT be created and destroyed by definition.

My apologies, I missed that you included "indestructable" as part of your original question.

Loki wrote:BIG difference between projecting your imagination on a thing, and actually physically dividing the thing.

Absolutely, our consciousness is a key component in constructing our environment and the things we experience in it, something which is far more crucial and fundamental than what you are talking about. Which is why I said that if we can't physically divide something because we don't have the technology or ability (whatever the reason may be), it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Loki wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Object A at point B in time is not the same as object A at point C in time

Why not?

Because something can not exist at two points in time simultaneously. It would be a blatant violation of A=A.

Loki wrote:Can a block of cheese be infinitely divided?

Logically, yes.

Loki wrote:No, obviously not. Eventually you're going to be left with atoms (thus cheese in finite).

What if one uses nuclear fission to divide the atoms, and then one comes up with a method to divide the remaining particles and so on and so on?

Loki wrote:So why should I believe that time is not finite?

I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm pointing out the simple fact that each moment in time is defined as such by an observer, and we can potentially divide each moment in time into smaller and smaller increments and vice-versa.

Loki: Eventually you're going to be left with atoms (thus cheese in finite).

Nick: What if one uses nuclear fission to divide the atoms, and then one comes up with a method to divide the remaining particles and so on and so on?

Wait a minute. Nick, it looks here like you're saying "...thus, cheese is infinite." Are you?

The real question is: who cut the cheese?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Loki: Eventually you're going to be left with atoms (thus cheese in finite).

Nick: What if one uses nuclear fission to divide the atoms, and then one comes up with a method to divide the remaining particles and so on and so on?

Wait a minute. Nick, it looks here like you're saying "...thus, cheese is infinite." Are you?

Absolutely not. Said cheese is what we define it to be and nothing else (finite). What I am saying is that we can logically (and in theory, physically) divide said cheese into cheese A and cheese B, and then we can divide cheese A into cheese A1 and cheese A2 and we can divide cheese B into cheese B1 and cheese B2 ad infinitum. So as you can see we end up with as many different cheese parts as we choose to divide it up into (causality), but no single cheese part is itself infinite (A=A).

Why Loki assumes that because we can potentially divide something in an infinite number of ways makes an entity itself infinite, I have no idea.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Loki wrote:BIG difference between projecting your imagination on a thing, and actually physically dividing the thing.

Absolutely, our consciousness is a key component in constructing our environment and the things we experience in it, something which is far more crucial and fundamental than what you are talking about.

I don't understand why you think imagining divisions is more crucial than actually splitting things apart using physical effort.

Which is why I said that if we can't physically divide something because we don't have the technology or ability (whatever the reason may be), it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You said that all things are always being created and destroyed. My response is that there may be some things which are not created and destroyed. It was a perfectly reasonable response.

Loki wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Object A at point B in time is not the same as object A at point C in time

Why not?

Because something can not exist at two points in time simultaneously. It would be a blatant violation of A=A.

Isn't it possible that these seemingly seperate 'two points in time' are really two parts of the same whole?

Loki wrote:Can a block of cheese be infinitely divided?

Logically, yes.

Um, no. Eventually you are going to reduce cheese down to atoms, at which point it would obviously cease to be cheese!

Loki wrote:No, obviously not. Eventually you're going to be left with atoms (thus cheese in finite).

What if one uses nuclear fission to divide the atoms,

Dividing atoms is not dividing cheese. If you've reduced cheese down to atoms, then you've eliminated the cheese.

Loki wrote:So why should I believe that time is not finite?

I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm pointing out the simple fact that each moment in time is defined as such by an observer, and we can potentially divide each moment in time into smaller and smaller increments and vice-versa.

We can divide cheese down to smaller and smaller increments - but eventually you have eliminated the cheese. Likewise, time may be like cheese in the sense that you can only divide it up so much. Eventually time stops.

Loki wrote:You said that all things are always being created and destroyed. My response is that there may be some things which are not created and destroyed. It was a perfectly reasonable response.

No, it's a bullshit "response." Don't let the likes of guest_of_logic deceive you!

Does the "possibility" that there may be an omnibenevolent alien god change the fact that things are, in reality and by definition, finite?

What do you think Nick is saying that's beyond that?

Um, no. Eventually you are going to reduce cheese down to atoms, at which point it would obviously cease to be cheese!

Not until he eats it! (Wow. Where is this conversation going and why?)

"Dividing" cheese into atomic structure is about that part of cheese known by definition as the smallest recognised division of a chemical element (a substance) (e.g., hydrogen and oxygen atoms) shared with other "not cheese" forms of matter. So, you haven't really "reduced" the cheese from cheese to an atom (the cheese still exists until its broken down by, say, unnatural human causes such as saliva, or natural causes such as mould...), you've merely further defined it in the context of chemical structure.

Leyla Shen wrote:[T]hings are, in reality and by definition, finite[.]

What do you think Nick is saying that's beyond that?

Are you so oblivious that you can't even provide an answer to that question when it's right there in what you quoted? Jeez Louise. Let's recap what you quoted:

Loki wrote:You [Nick] said that all things are always being created and destroyed.

Is this or is it not "beyond" the claim that "things are, in reality and by definition, finite"?