Out with the insults. Enjoy your feeble deviation I’ll let you have it.
You don’t have to say anything. That is the true intentions of all you progressive types with your delusions of better followed by your faith like ambitions to throw amongst the rest of humanity.
Always in a state of not accepting reality for what it “is”in the here and now but instead aspiring how existence “ought” to be in the present or future created in a image of man’s perfect ideal.
The idealist with his head stuck in the clouds unable to see what is already around himself.
You are incorrect. And science will, eventually, prove it.
It is a longstanding principle of logic (and the first lesson taught in the introduction thereto) that you cannot have “A” and “Not A” in the same place at the same time. However, that principle is based solely upon the inability of anyone like me to prove otherwise. The burden is placed upon the wrong party. My inability to prove something (such as “A” = “-A”) does not mean it is not true. Just because someone could not prove the existence of black holes a thousand years ago does not mean they did not exist.
You are also incorrect in your argument that “By intuitively you mean emotionally.” You are incorrect in telling me what I mean. That is an idiot statement. You are also incorrect in assuming intuition is emotion.
Finally, since the buren of proof lies upon the proponent of a given position, the burden is upon you to show that you cannot have “A” and “Not A” in the same place at the same time.
I think that as we finally begin to understand what was, and what was not, pre-big bang, we will find it was “A and Not A” in the same place at the same time. Once we figure that out, we will then discover that such was not only then, but that such is now, too. Just because you cannot percieve it does not mean it is not there. Indeed, if “All” exists (and not) then YOU are merely here fulfilling your role in All. That’s what you do. But there is another YOU doing something else. And a YOU doing both, at the same time, in the same place.
When you open your brain, you can appreciate that. But I don’t want you to. I want some version of you playing the idiot. Thank you.
Quite simply, the statement argues that Reality/Universe can’t be separate from itself. EVEN IF that were true, that does not mean that “itself” cannot be cause or explanation. Who ever said that the Universe or Reality cannot be cause and explanation? Whoever said that cause and explanation must be separate from what is caused or explained? That is silly.
Here is logic:
“Reality—that which exists—must have cause and explanation: any alleged cause would itself have to exist, i.e., be a part of reality. Likewise, the universe—the totality of all that which exists—must have cause and explanation: any alleged cause would have to exist as part of the universe, i.e., as part of the totality of what exists.”
As our founding fathers would say, that truth is self-evident.
Now, I would put my name under that as my quote, but as you know, I also believe “A = -A” and I was only defeating your quote under the incorrect “EVEN IF” assumption that the Universe/Reality can’t be separate from themselves.
Again, you have said nothing, by committing the same error that the quote defeats. You have provided nothing new except an unfounded assertation, so I will simply refer you back to the quote to the counter to your garbage.
Again, you are wrong. The quote YOU agree with separates Reality/Universe from Cause/Explanation. I put them back together where they belong. After demonstrating the failure of Ghate’s reasoning, I then articulate my own position which stands unrebutted.
You conclude with a reference to my position as “garbage.” You stand corrected. I should add, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” Ayn Rand
Perhaps we have a new “logical principle” to the effect: “If JamesShrugged doesn’t get it then it must not be.” LOL!
“A” does equal “-A” just not in the same state. Having $1 and owing $1 dollar is an amount that is exactly the same just the state of having and owing are different.
The universe could be explained as a paradox if it just always was because this is how something can BE without a beginning. But wait, what is the alternative? Creation? By who? When did this Being begin? No beginning so this Being just always was? Why then invent a Being and not just the universe we know as reality?
Maybe the universe/reality is just all energy caused by this paradoxical dog chasing its own tail.
A thing can consist of a multitute of properties and relations and most things do. Even the most clever identity theorist, (that IS what we’re talking about here w/ the = sign right?) has to admit that two things can’t be wholly identical even if only on the ground that they can’t occupy the same place in space or time. That doesn’t mean that they can’t have the requisite points of identity to satisfy the use of = here by sharing certain properties.
A = A is short hand for the axiom of Identity. What we are discussing is a corrollory of that called the principle of noncontradiction. Basicallt it satses that because entities have identity (ie certain properties) a thing can not be what it is and what it is not at the same time and in the same context. A = A is about “two things” is simply states that a thing is what it is.
I agree that that is the what we know. What I am discussing is what we don’t know. I am simply saying that we don’t know it, not because it is not true, and not because we can’t know it, but, rather, because we have yet to understand it.
Think of the provervial two dimensional world where there parties thereon cannot experience our world. That doesn’t mean we aren’t here in three dimensions (four with time). Likewise, physists speculate about fifth, sixth, seventh, etc dimensions that we can’t experience but which very well could be there.
Last I heard, their best minds speculated that there cold be up to ten. Well, I think that is just plain silly. There are actually infanite dimensions, and none at all, all in the same place at the same time, and never, and nowhere.
Mathematicians working to make string theory plausible needed ten dimensions to calculate with in order to make the model at all possible to construct. So the extra dimensions are not hypothesized because it is known or suspected what happens in them, what they signify - they are conveniently described as curled up, non manifest, but still existing.
So it’s not that there could only be up to ten - as the word dimension loses it’s tangible meaning, there could be up to infinite I suppose - but ten are needed for this specific model, which will likely remain completely unverifyable.
Idealism > for the perfect idealism one allow all perspectives to be heard but not acted out if that threatens Humanities very survival.
Dualism > for me the good is important because it allows survival of Humanity , no gods allowed . and this can come from a warrior to the common man. as long as the fundamental principle " of good " is in fact to the survival of Humanity. evil is a state of mind of confusion. from bitterness , power etc.
dialectics > I find no problem here one needs to express , either experience , or thoughts . language evolves. I recently found out that the Egyptian language , hieroglyphics has 780 characters , as compared to our 26 , hmm… hieroglyphics anyone!!!
in some ways I agree with you , but in the end the study of reality , a discussion of reality must first start with acceptance that we are OF reality and that dialectics , especially , is apart of it. since dialectics is an expression of an experience(s) by and of individual(s) and thoughts which while limited at times , can and does evolve. how else can we discuss reality , if not through dialectics.
so joker without dialectics how do propose we discuss reality? I assume you have another way so present us with your other way.
Where does the need to categorize reality come from?
Why is there a need in the first place?
Of course you are familiar with my visions of primal instinct and intuition regulating human behavior but for the idealist like yourself it is “not enough.”
so present us with your other way.