I have this explained in words if Ecmandu ever shows up. Or you want me to.
[edit: first one is after discussing with oldest son]
Re: Determinism
[size=85]Postby Ichthus77 » Fri 13 Jan, 2023 15:52[/size]
[i][b]If there is no actual sovereignty, there is no way to resolve the questions answered by a C Theory of time. I have been working on it on my own outside of the forum, but I am waiting for Ecmandu to show up. However, if you want me to share it, I can start a new thread. I prefer not to start without Ecmandu.
Faith just means trust/accept.[/b][/i]
__
I’ll leave that decision to you… I’ll be here, either way.
I saw your mention of C Theory, in the Determinism thread… ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … y#p2894609 very humorous.
Well the words I’m talking about are like a whole paper. I edited my last reply to include an image of what things look like after talking to my oldest son a moment ago.
I kind of don’t want to post my whole paper if no one‘s actually going to read it. I might just blog it if Ecmandu never shows himself.
There’s this dialectic thing I did in convo with detrop/Zoot Allures years back with this structure, and some of the stuff I did with that still makes no sense to me, but here’s as far as I’m going with that right now:
thesis (formal cause)
antithesis (efficient cause)
prothesis (material cause)
synthesis (final cause)
more recent concept is altertheses
_
Or this…
[b][i]“…quantum atom theory is A Theory and Parmenides is B Theory?
Or could quantum atom theory work with a synthesized C Theory that merges A Theory’s actual/concrete now, and B Theory’s whole, into one C Theory, so now is concretized idea (intentional inexistence in God’s mind), and all other moments are inexistent (idea), but not yet intentional (concrete)? If so, moments are overlapped before the whole thing kicked off—finished before it started—our choices included.”
[/i][/b]
…as a starting point, for discussion?
__
Do you think that Ecmandu will come back?
did you see my edits? i’m hunting for a thread right now
Yea, but you said… “but here’s as far as I’m going with that right now”.
__
What is it depicting, exactly?
Good/Time (uncreated whole)
subsuming begotten Logos/whole timeline
subsuming now/present
(fractaliciously)
Notice how our contact with (super)nature is infused with meaning or felt purpose before it factors in to the connectionism/map
imagine fresh shells not yet hardened
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 0#p2868700
or instead of shells, uterus (idea/eternal)
instead of whites, lining (intuition/sequence)
instead of yolks, zygotes/babies (concept/now)
…or wind/nihil… (miscarriage)
like a grenade
I know. The essay is less weird, more intelligible, I promise.
Infinity, yes or no?
I choose yes!
Third page:
whole infinite
infinite whole
Ah yes, more contradictions and oxymorons from Itch This…no whole, only infinite.
Limitless, Incomplete, Unknowable.
a fractal is a whole infinite
in movement we see in part
Infinite is beyond you.
Why are you arguing just to argue?
Because infinity is not a whole.
You’re still arguing just to argue.
At least you’ve stopped contradicting yourself, if not but for a moment.
Square Circles.