If not A ~ B [a contains b] then C/ab

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If not A ~ B [a contains b] then C/ab

if we take an electrical signal say in your TV, it can become light, colour & sound but none of those things exist within the electrical signal itself. One variation of em is being matched one-one with another, so the light and sound is copying the motion of the electrical signal. This disagrees with the formula above.

However, our consciousness is or its utility is electromagnetic, and can physically experience many such otherwise linear parts of the spectrum. There is something which is receiving multiple signals and merging them into a single experience, even with all its diversity, there is a necessary connectivity between all parties, 1 into the multiple.

The universe is doing the same thing such to find its resolution, and there is no overall existent matrix. We could say that the brain is like a TV in that it is merging multiple linear signals into one, again on a 1-1 basis as any electrical instrument. Yet the universe is not one cohesive entity like a brain, indeed one cannot have brains as cohesive entities if the universe is that, as the brain would necessarily be part of that whole. So the universe is a bundle of multiple cohesive wholes and generally disconnected entities [even separate patterns rather than one], which are hence not all directly connected to one another.

We have already discussed how the instrument made with set ‘A’ e.g. a human or a machine, manifests a different information set. So here again we can see how information diversifies, point being that there is no overall linear sequencing in the universe ~ it is not bijective.

So now we have to ask how the universe and consciousness can correlate all of that, ‘A’ can become ‘B’ in the mirroring fashion as above, where it doesn’t require A to contain B, yet there is always a third containing party C, which does have to ‘draw the world’ [in our minds and in the world]. Then for one thing to have the capability to become another like electricity to light/colour, reality must contain both in C/ab format, or at least that is my proposition here?

Theoretically where you have the electromagnetic spectrum, for one thing to become another there must first be the provision for that. This suggests a metaphysical underbelly which does contain ab and is C, prior to the actual manifest existence of colour and magnetism. Without this function the universe has to essentially makes things up out of thin air and maybe it does do that? This would reasonably require a universal substance which may become one or the other qualities such as colour and sound, when an information is applied to it.

On the other hand, at root one information type say electrical signals, only requires a capacity to change its frequency, it doesn’t actually change from a to b, and it is still ‘A’, only now has different behaviours. This does not describe and indeed denies the given qualia from having an existence [A is only information], and that would mean we wouldn’t be able to e.g. see colour qualia, and TV’s aren’t actually producing colour.

In the end we have to name everything in existence as one single thing which changes and then we cannot call it anything else ~ there is only ‘A’ and no b, c, d…, infinity etc. No gaps! When I look at how the world works there are always different parties at work, and not one. The classification of existence in the singular/quantum is a categorical error.

Ultimately reality must contain everything in it, nothing is an illusion in the sense of being purely ‘mental’ where there is actually no such thing as that suffix [‘mental’].

_

2

dp pls delete

3

First off, there is a matrix cognitively to how these statements are generated. A=A=A=A=A=A is observation and memory. You can see A=A through affirmation in the right hemisphere. You can test A=A by darting the eyes momentarily from A back to A. However, this doesn’t work on A=A=A=A=A=A… the As in the beginning of the sequence are mere memory by time the As at the end are repeated, the last hemisphere is where statements are generated, and this portion of the mind is blind, depended upon the senses (so is verification in the right hemisphere).

Causality is your ability to take statememts in the left hemisphere that have already been connected together (thunk Pgonetic Ethics connecting stuff together on a purely abstract level) on a abstract level and making it concrete, ahere we can verify and test.

Lets say you invented a new kind of projectile device, neither sling, slingshot, bow, or gun. You want to test it… going forth, you have alot of ideas, alot of presumptions. You give it a good try… how many statememts survive, how many die from trial and error? From observation? How often will you be confounded to discover everything doesn’t work in the real world as you abstractly assumed before?

Your formula C/ab is therefore meaningless. It’s a largely empty value, presuming how relations should fall, searching for a consistent rule for phenomena, while rejecting this as phenomena is too difficult to track. Your trying to give predictive rules to chaos, give order to knowing, but admit you really dont know whats in that chaos, so the knowing is ratger empty to begin with. Why bother with this in the first place? C is ultimately meaningly, a Heraclitian Flux, far too generalized to be of any use as a statement. It is neither 0, nor Infinity, just a placeholder fir a lazy mathemstician looking to feel comfortable with the unpredictable.

What is in Schrodinger’s Box? In your case, it’s C, cat poo, cause you left the door open out of mental laziness, being far too Generalist, trying to predict phenomena on next to nothing.

4

D contains C, E contains D, yet FU disbars them all. It is meaningless to have statements generalized to the point of near nothingness follow logical rules, and fixate logical fallacies to them in advance.

Every universal category of things need to be able to conform to a particular thing for the sake of review and confirmation, analysis and falsibility of theory. If you don’t, it’s all logically silly, the mind has no anchor, it will run amok. Logic is a posteri of knowledge, a real, tangible thing should be the beginning of every proper thesis. Why guessing what is inside a black hole is so hard.

What are the particulars? If you can’t trace your statements in a matrix against this, your universals are bullshit. You don’t need to know everything about A or B to presume C, but you can’t assert C in all seriousness, where us has consistent meaning, without a laundry list of particulars profiled. These are statements within statements. How many observations are understood enough to be made a statement? How many statements are recalled that are relevant? What is the difference between memory, direct observation, and connective ideas?

Do you grasp what Sextus Empericus was getting at?

5

Turd Ferguson

No its a simple logical device; take one universe, see that it is finite, now add one or more, or an infinite amount of them and you have 2 or more circles of existence with their own causality [energy is conserved] and you have 2 or more cicles within a larger containing circle. I don’t see what is wrong with that reasoning? Secondly in quantum mechanics we can have a photon in virtual but not actual physical existence, and it can be brought into existence at two or more [possibly infinite] locations. [I posted the link to the experiment on another thread you may have noticed]. Clearly again there are three or more positions; existent spatial location ‘A’ then non- existent ~ superposition ‘C’ then spatial location ‘B’ . we can name them how we like surely, and the hemisphere’s of the brain along with language and subjective meanings are irrelevant. If reality works by the above reasoning then the brain will also be working like that at the lower level [i.e. prior to the subjective or subconscious experience], & the causality you describe is a fiction.

_
edit;

I don’t know his works, enlighten me, and please don’t let it be about language problems.

6

Your confusing quantum entanglement with unique thingness. Observation of effect doesnt ensure a tbing is a thing, its causal presumption. I punch you seemingly with my fist isn’t the same as being punched. Your using two modes of mind, and can get confused easily on presumption and misdirection… a lot like scientist playing with quantum entanglement. Its a rather simple task to notice if you cause a effect to happen elsewhere, the elsewhere effect isn’t one and the same. If I approach a table with a series of tubes with water built with water in it, and push down on the water in tube 1, if it rises in tube 2 but not Tube 3 and 4, it’s logical to presume 1 and 2 may be the same tube, or at least connected to the same tank. It is not until I duck down to verify that I will know for certain it’s not one big tank, or all connected by valves, etc.

The rest of what you wrote is meaningless.

Here:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/sextus-empiricus/

He represents a whole ancient school of philosophy, including mathematics. Explaining him quickly is like explaining Plato, Aristotle, or Zeno quickly. Pay attention to his mathematical writings as well. It takes time, but I don’t think a more important philosopher exists out there for you to tackle.

7

turd

There is no such thing as unique thingness, name an instance?! You already know that in both relativity and quantum entanglement the observation denotes or can change the outcome, so the water pipe analogy is inadequately macroscopic.

Thanks but you didn’t explain what was wrong with my reasoning, but rather spoke of an alternative viewpoint, and one which assumes singularity of objects where current physics denies that. - a different debate if you want to debate current physics.

Pyrrhonian skepticism involves having no beliefs about philosophical, scientific, or theoretical matters—and according to some interpreters, no beliefs at all, period

Thanks for the link. I thought that was also my basis, and here I am not adhering to the belief that qualities are different to other reals. I think my memory is real bad, naturally I do know the basics of skeptisism, don’t know why I didn’t make the correlation doh.

Haven’t read his maths yet, but will do. edt; by math do you mean his modes?

8

He operates off a similar basis as Zoots and Joker (HaHaHa) cognitively, but is much, much more evolved in his grasping of mathematical dialectics. You have a blind spot in your method, he exposes the root of it. He can’t carry you alone, as a solve all source, but I think studying him will carry you farther than any other philosopher by themselves I can think of. It would be my strongest suggestion to look over his writings twice.

Oxymoron, and a very telling one at that. Think about it, what was Adam’s job in the Garden of Eden? To name Proper Nouns. What was Cratylus doing when he pointed at things?

Γραμμὴ Δίχα Τετμημένη

9

Ii am afraid I’ve never been into ‘word philosophy’, it gets tangled up in itself and leaves us with nothing left ~ which I find distracting. I have a very visual intellect which appreciates all that, but doesn’t want to get tied in a knot by it. I guess I’m just a different more poetic type of philosopher or something. Scepticism is so ingrained in our society its a bit hard to not come to know it inherently, its a bit like Christianity, one can know more than they’d ever wish to know without even trying.

Back on topic; A:A:A:A:A:A:A ultimately means there are no 'B’s, which is like saying there is literally only one thing which exists. Then there is no way to achieve differentiation without variance and hence A, B, C, D, E, F,… ensues.

I can see a reality made of atom like particles or points, but I cannot conceive one which arrives at that ~ they have to be already there. To get to particles there has to be an underlying metaphysics of superposition at least, no?

10

He dealt with visual paradoxes as well. I personally try to represent a eclectic variety of systems, emphasizing visual and words myself.

Not necessarily, A is A is A is A, like I informed Ecmandu recently (he thought I was toying with him) doesn’t reaffirm the thing in itself, but merely the assumption of classification.

If I said “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” like Gertrude Stein said, in Sacred Emily…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_is … _is_a_rose

Every reiteration of it isn’t necessarily a affirmation of what came before, each is a representative statement, that has to be seen and taken into account in and of itself, if we didn’t need to do this, we would just say A with a infinity symbol after it.

So it is as much as a statement as a potential question. Are we talking quantities, qualities, aspects in a temporal mechanics that someone like John Locke would dispute the identity of, as time goes by? Atoms, points, Monads are held by time, so Locke’s point about time and identity still holds… especially with Atoms that are constantly changing internal position and relevance in terms of force to other particles on a temporal level I can’t even begin to compute.

When you make a statement in math, it is a reorientation… each time. It is as valid to accept this as being like before, as to assume a new mental mode is being suggested to understand the object. Our brains afford us this possibility, but many symbolic mathematics operate blind to this. It can cause serious misunderstandings if larger theories are built up from it, as it seems rather inconsequential in the beginning.

11

This is the whole problem with modern philosophy and science, it refuses to accept individuality. Damn philosophical communists lol. If a thing has identity, another thing cannot have the same identity, otherwise there is no identity!? Roses are roses but all roses are different.

We could make say silk roses with machines, and they would all be the same likeness, yet that is specifically because they don’t have individual identity [other than being in a different spatial location and of different particles in a different part of the quantum ‘matrix’]. This is what ‘the same’ means.

We do have a situation where all the factors can change, time, location, property, value, qualities can all change and are all interchangeable. Yet for me I still think that involves distinction, it just takes both the qualities of indistinct, with the distinct, and holds both up in the air and makes comparisons, then throws them together in the blend we call manifest existence. Ergo metaphysically we have interchangeable factors that cannot be pinned down because they all relate. However, if we don’t have differentiation and variance there is just emptiness, and that is not synonymous with saying there are different interchangeable parties.

Perhaps instead of A-A-A-A as opposed to x, y, z, you get position 1, 2, 3, which a,a,a, can move into in any variation of those positions and will have a relative value respective to their positions. thus giving us x,y,z, values.

The positions are equally as important and kinda like like a circle of people wearing coloured and reflective clothes stood on coloured and reflective spots, when the people swap position everything about those positions changes.

its all about the reorientation imho.
_

12

Yes, reorientation. When I say I am a Boydian, I am very serious. Every statement is a command to “reorient” in the cognitive cycle. You Orient first, then go into Observation Mode, then Decide to continue on, or reorient again.

To say A.?.?.?.? Statements are Demands towards reorientation. It is said, so is presumed to have independent meaning “look here” each time.

Not all this occurs in the language part of the brain, if I saw Faust try to slip up in 20th Century Language Philosophy saying “it’s just a language problem” I would scoff at him. A = A isn’t a language problem, it’s a perception and causality problem. Most of the OODA Loop occurs in the mind’s planning process. Each statement starts that process, triggers it into motion. Its why we produce formulas to be processed and solved in the first place. Otherwise, your math is chicken scratch.

Math doesn’t have to be causal. You can, for example, go back to Heron of Byzantium… first time a 3-D mechanical drawling via perspective was produced in the west, and note there ISN’T a demand of time or sequence to ANY likeness of the machine parts. They were assembled whole, so you can look to confirm and compare any aspect comparatively and interchangeably, independent of time constraints. You can spend a minute bouncing your eyes across it, or a lifetime.

Every aspect of a machine drawling that you lay your eyes upon in a statement. A picture can have a million statements in it, many unexpected and unintentional. Its how our brain works, the language aspects can’t usually keep up with the visual acumen. We might rest our eyes on a completely unexpected spot and ponder “How, Why, What If”.

Repeating a statement over and over and over allows for these possibilities, it says each time “look here” but it doesn’t control the looking very well.

Luckily, most mathematicians don’t waste their time on this. However, I suspect the first AIs who turn to philosophy will become obsessed with this. A pure computer program that only knows to process code (blind otherwise) will take a stance differently from a AI with other senses. I can see them squabbling over logic loops, infinities, human cognition pitfalls and shortcuts, etc. Humans rarely have to worry about this, even though it really bites us in the ass when we take so much time doing temporal mechanics on one scale, expecting the Axioms to hold on a higher scale where the parts on involved, in a relativistic universe. That shit is gonna bite your ass after a while, thinking in freeze frame small or big, then switching. Its a Philosophy of Size paradox, are all things relativistic simply because they are effecting one another continuously, or does size and complexity have a much greater pull than relativistic statements independent of consideration of scale lead us to believe? Is a hydrogen Atom in a star the same as when it is later floating in space, on a planet, and later on traveling to a black hole, then falling into it? A is A is A is A after all. Would not the Sunness of A effect A differently than the Voidness of A, or the Blackholeness of A? What if we can look insude, and see the orbits and connections of said atom differ substantially in each case… be like outlr solar system… always “our solar system” expanding the orbit of every planet to within Mercury’s orbit, then expelling them all out beyond Pluto, in circumstantial cycles.

You watch science fiction… how well do you think a TARDIS could navigate time on a A.A.A.A.A.A. basis without getting stuck constantly, or the TARDIS exploding? Someone says “Lets go to Cardiff” (why the fuck always Cardiff) and they step out to Jurassic era Cardiff, or Cardiff as it is dalling into a black hole.

No… thats not what they meant, but he could argue all the stuff of Cardiff is there in a sense in each case. A is A is A and be a smart ass as people struggle to breath a impossible atmosphere or fight a giant lizard. There is no veil of ignorance in physics, but we seem to operate as if there was.

13

Double post due to Carleas server being uncommunicative as fuck as usual.

I just now noticed, whoever did the mock up of the OODA Loop graph got the positions of Orient and Observe wrong, it is Orient, Then Observe. Firecracker goes off, you Orient first, then Observe it. I gotta find a better diagram on the net.

14

Interesting read. I am unsure if human mind problems are the same as the universes logic problems though, the universe/nature has to distinguish such to divide, and without division/ and difference it cannot do that.
As the universe exists, I think we can safely say that nature has resolved its logic problem, and simply divides shit up a,b,c,d,e etc.

A pure computer program that only knows to process code (blind otherwise) will take a stance differently from a AI with other senses. I can see them squabbling over logic loops, infinities, human cognition pitfalls and shortcuts, etc

Surely an AI with senses is essential to them debating, and the one with subjectivity can observe info and sensory streams such to make comparisons in a similar way to we do. An AI with pure computer brain [no senses etc] wont care, and wont feel superior/inferior, there would be for it, no need for debate.
My guess is that you wont get AI without giving the machine a means to understand the world via e.g. sight. Inevitably computers will uses ‘senses’ because they will drive our cars before they drive over us with them lol. I don’t think a pure computer will be able to think et al.

I think so, indeed it is the constant renewal of info upon 3D points or positions [like a laser hitting a sphere], then those going off in a myriad of tangents, that there has to be a relative aspect/differential between them. There is some differences between how things work at the macroscopic level [size and complexity you mentioned], but that’s another debate. We may find that once we understand what’s underpinning our world, that in fact it is the complexity of background information [at the quantum scale] what derives the overlay of size and complexity in the macroscopic.

Causality = you point a gun at point blank range, and it is going to hit. We may find that the given information at base drives our thoughts and information in the world, and in fact it is that which made you shoot the gun!

Now consider the position here; if the assertion in the op is correct then that appearance of more linear causality is an illusion. Reality is then not like a load of snooker balls bouncing off one another, not to mention that our consciousness may indeed also be working in non-linear fashion at base [if there is a QM entanglement dynamic to it].

The BBC has some shit [buildings people etc] there, that’s why Cardiff. Oh and there has been a motion to decentralise from London for a while now, & it also has buildings and stuff in manchester. I don’t know about the tardis plausibility, but it would probably use quantum entanglement and reach an exact location in time and space, where there could not be a misadventure as that would involve not knowing where point b is and hence no means to travel there. DR could be a lot better, but as we sci-fi fans have little else these days I suppose it will have to do.

Consciously it iss that, but if a lion jumps out on you, you move prior to taking time to orient and observe. That’s why people/animals run then stop and look around. …but I agree the orientation comes before observing, indeed sometimes I notice that as like a phasing in and out between observations.

_

15

Yeah, Boyd knew about the reflexes, it was the central theme to his theory, he used to show pilots in the Air force flying jets that their perception and instincts were based on this, and how easy it was to break a lock on a jet they were pursuing. I’m going to have to make up a new graph, I don’t know who made it, I’m noting small mistakes in it. Might of been his son, used to run a website called Belisarius.com. They designed the F-22 Raptor after his theory, it’s the most advanced fighter jet on earth, so wouldn’t take him lightly.

Oh… there are no universals. I’m not the first to state this, but I’m the main one in the current era that I know of still asserting this.

Reason why there are no universals is because they are anti-perceptive, anti-emperical. For the same reason why Colonel Boyd could challenge anyone to get a lock on him (he allowed them to) and maintain it for any length of time (he didn’t allow them too… had a knack for disappearing contrary to expectations of prey", what our instincts overriding us tell us how things should unfold.

Its why Occam’s Razor has validity as a tool, even though in and of itself it can’t prove anything. Simpler is better for the mind. But at the same time, you make an idea too simple, too broad, it can seriously fail you. Nobody has full conscious control of their mind at any given moment. Our every experience is limited, and there is no hyperexperience, a combination of all ways of thinking. It neither results in Nirvana, Dialectic Extinction, or a Omega Point. Its not ABOVE consciousness, it isn’t MORE reflective of the “Real”, it’s actually much beneath, and far more limited than our normal, serene experiences. The reason why is because it’s aimed at technical thought… how to make things. The impulse to universals is but a function of the mind, and it only exists external to our sense of self as long as it has a unconscious aspect to it we don’t consciously understand when analyzing it.

Say you give a universal awareness, All of X is Congruent in Y as in Z, and W.

What is linking this multiplicity? Another hidden function of the mind. I believe it was Trixie who pointed out to you it was Phonetic Ethics… his ability to take statements on proton linguistic grounds and link them together. Its all rather inept and nasty looking, he literally goes nowhere with it. In and if itself it doesn’t do much in the left but create chicken scratch, but for someone with OCD (right hemisphere, prone to dyslexia, reading disorders, image based thinking) it’s fuel for the fire.

Its the building blocks for imagination, for creating theories, for technical creation and organization of complexity out of complete chaos. Universals are a instinct to giving clarity to this, but don’t actually exist externally… they inform of external things. They are very much internal, and seeded in paradox, which Sextus Empericus points out all too often.

[I’m not saying the left hemisphere acts just like PE, he has some issues in the cingulate, but it’s a good example for you as you both seem interested in similar things. He has poor processing of universals… like the times he tried looking at they symmetry of the Smurf Hats (which a phyrgian caps) on the basis of form line recognition, thinking they matched the Ying Yang symbol… Universal blew up in his face there. Two opposite points on a line don’t make a line, a few psychological operations sit between the two of you. You’ll need more than each other to bridge the divide, your just the two farthest point of it.]

16

Amorphos, i am not sure if your post is that good. C/ab is an expression, not an equation. What does C/ab equal?

The way I see it, its all a matter of shapes. Things have different shapes, and thus things appear seperated due to their shape and color. Shape and color is the core essence of ultimate reality.

Our brains are real, even if this was a fake world made in a simulation, our brains are persistent entities and that have consistent properties. Doesnt matter if they were programmed that way or if it was arose by accident. A form is defined as real if it keeps showing up on the timeline over and over again.

A TV converts electric signals to photon waves, which are then converted into electrical signals in our brains. What we see is what we see. A=A is a rather meaningless statement. Electrical signals are electrical signals because that is the word we assigned to the form. Our brains seem to be localized because they show up on scans along with our bodies, but we cannot be sure if they are actually the cause of our consciousness, or if they are not merely persistent forms generated by a simulation in non-local space. Same with our TV colors, we assume TV is behind the colors and our eyes are the agents, but we cannot be sure they are, they could just be persistent entities and not the prime agents.

17

There seems to be an inherent spiritual ability to recognize the consistency of forms. For example, last year we were at a picnic, and we remember what a picnic bench is. We assume that our memory is real, and this is where the spiritual component is. For all we know, our memory could be false, and a picnic bench might not be a picnic bench but defined as a camera last year. But we deeply spiritually know that our memory did not change.

18

Your memory changes every time you reexamine that memory.

His statement is a equation because he is considering it casually, so it becomes more that one statement when you look at the pathways possible upon reflecting on the Law of Identity.

He is playing with The Concept of Dependent Origination. Your right it is meaningless, but your wrong it doesn’t equal anything. Very wrong. Your take also Trixie, is within that tradition as well, almost as much as Amorphos’ queries are. He is still in the stronger balance, but I do need to point out your mistake shows one of the ways out of Indra’s Net, which is something your both toying with unknowingly.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda

A lacuna doesn’t mean a incomplete operation, just suggests the operand is what us consciously in use. Its a important aspect to pay attention to when looking at a philosophy, the thing that is missing is oftentimes the very thing pushing everything along. Just because as use it is missing from the page doesn’t mean it’s not very much there.

19

I deeply spiritually know that the word “picnic bench” always refered to an object that resembles a wooden table, rather than a wrench. I deeply spiritually know that in my life time, the word “picnic bench” never referred to what looks like a metal can of soup.

20

tf

The way I was using the symbols/letters, was simply to denote the relative positions. I don’t think that means there are actual universals, more that the universe must have an informational means to its manifestation in the physical. Then that has to move between the infinite and the ‘finite’ or quantum. This means that the universe is working things out, perhaps in loose algorithms, but not that that pertains to actual universal entities or universals per se.

trixie

It means what it says on the tin [as in the op], and equals nothing… you can replace the symbols with whatever you want, as they only loosely represent the said structure of manifestation. All algebra is metaphoric!?

You have to arrive at shapes.

There cannot be a so called background information directing existence ~ a simulation, given that the theory here sustains itself. Secondly the denumerable trajectories of quantum paths [without even going into entanglement], and in a relativistic environment, also means that information cannot be linear at base.

It is I agree! We don’t see in an A=A fashion [being subjective beings and whatnot]. Our brains get derivative informations in that format but it also calibrates and interprets that into a projected experiential world [but we are seeing also with the instruments!]. We are C/x,y,z…, but firstly we are C/ab. This is why we think in trinary, past into the present and projecting into the future. Why in our decision making, our brain build comparatives; do we want the strawberry or chocolate ice-cream and the like.

To have a balance and to compare, requires three parties, and at least two being held in comparison by the central one. It is exactly the same with particles and their polarities, and that is why the universe existentially contains objects in meta-position I.E yet to exist. This is also due to the mathematics of a relativistic let alone quantum universe, all things cannot be counted, and therefore not all things exist and there can be no governing party bar existence [its product] itself.

_