Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Can you edit it again? Your 8-sectioned sentence lacks clarity.

You’re saying a single particle moving to a new place is newness of all particles as a whole → this is something coming from something else which is the same as something coming from nothing → eternal states are also nothing (of which you’re arguing in favour)… and somehow this string of quite clear contradictions doesn’t change an unassailable logic?

I mean… what?! :-k

Also, if you keep having to edit your posts because you’re launching into a defense of only the first part my posts without even reading it all yet, I suggest you take a more rationed attitude to debating. The first read can be hard because it attacks your investment - that’s not the time to reply. Stand back after you’ve read it all, calm down, honestly consider the truth behind what the other person is saying, then respond with a view to the truth rather than saving your ego. Otherwise you’ll never get anywhere in debate.

I read your whole post, went to the most important part of the discussion, and then realized it was rude to not address the other two points. A whopping 5 minute delay is hardly characteristic of cherry picking.

So here’s the deal:

You either understand this concept or not:

If anything never was, but, suddenly is, it’s the same as something coming from nothing.

The argument against this is that something comes from something else, which by definition, isn’t nothing.

To which I reply, any novel construct had no precedence, coming from no precedence is the same as coming from nothing. It’s novelty is NEW. Never found before. Understand?

So once you understand this, in order for an existent, to not come from nothing, it has to have ALWAYS existed. If everything, sans, hypothetical other dimensions always exists, it freezes everything into the same state forever. Freezing everything into the same state forever is nothing at all, in this dimension.

So you need to split up dimensions where finite forms, constantly new are accessing eternal forms which are the templates of the observations…

If such eternal forms don’t exist, it forces in this dimension (if that’s all there is, as you’re arguing) to freeze or to come from nothing at all. The force, is that eternal forms (templates for existents outside space and time) need to exist in order for new stuff to not come from nothing at all (these templates aren’t nothing at all). If you remove the templates, than any new occurrence must come from nothing.

Now, remember the definition of nothing: isn’t

That is also the main reason existence exists, because nothing: isn’t.

You’ve basically been ad homing me for about 4 exchanges now, and projecting your emotionalist projection on to me. I’d appreciate if you’d stop doing that.

The problem is that I understand your position all too well and you’d do well to consider this possibility. But if you explain it in a profoundly bad way, I can’t know that you’re referring to a thing I understand.

However your latest post is just about the most coherent I’ve ever heard you, well done.

The problem of your argument is that you are thinking in terms of identity statically as a premise. So it’s no wonder you’re concluding that the universe is constituted of static forms as a result. Circular.

Is a cat that has shed a hair the same cat? Of course. Is it an entirely different cat just because the same particles moved? Of course not - this is how identity is used in practice. It’s even how YOU use identity whether you realise/admit it or not: you’re using it in this very same argument such that it isn’t a different argument every different way you formulate/phrase it or even spell it/type it from moment to moment - it’s even how you’re thinking of yourself, moving around, neurons firing, fingers pressing different keys, as the same person and not an entirely new person each time. Without a dynamic sense of identity, you wouldn’t even be you from moment to moment.

So now, is there an eternal form of “you” (or of “human” etc etc) and NOT an eternal form of a universe with a particle in a new place? You can’t have it both ways. If you’re of the same eternal form of “you” however you move, and the universe is not of the same eternal form of “universe” because a particle moved, either you admit it’s the same universe constituted of the same moving particles to achieve a different overall appearance, and your own identity stays in tact however you move, or like you’re trying to say in your point: the universe is entirely novel because something shifted, and you admit you are not yourself from moment to moment. If you do the latter (which would be sticking with your argument), then good luck continuing this argument or at all!

So we’ve shown how a universe in a new arrangement isn’t a new universe, so something e.g. particles coming together in a certain way to become recognisable as a spoon isn’t physically something coming from nothing - only the mental label being validly applied to the very first spoon is something that came from nothing. And even then, the “mental” label of spoon in “physical” sound, writing or even thought is just the same “physical” somethings moving around making the same somethings in different arrangements, but now “mentally” recognised and called something else in this moment compared to the last one.

The proven conservation of energy is just another way of saying that it was always around just in different arrangements: same universe, same something continually coming from something. There is no nothing and no imaginary and inaccessible realm needed. Do I get to say “you either understand it or not” in a patronising way too?

Ok, so now we’re starting to get on the same page.

My argument in my videos and many times in the forum have been explicit:

Identity can only possibly be a product of eternal forms.

The mind is not capable of forming identity from absolute chaos (also nothingness).

To be able to discern an object, there must be something about that object which NEVER MOVES!

That’s what an eternal form is.

Why would there be an eternal form for ‘cat’ when cats could have evolved to be completely different (or slightly different) from the cats that we see now?

It doesn’t make sense for there to be an eternal form for something that is infinitely variable.

The problem here is a black and white conception of the order of an eternal form that never moves… and everything else as absolute chaos.

It should be apparent from looking out at the world that things are happening to all sorts of degrees of relative order/chaos. A slab of rock on a cold day with no wind is relatively very orderly, where a plume of smoke on a windy day is highly chaotic - it’s all occurring on a scale that in turn occurs in many different shades and colours.
Consider why the theory of relativity was an improvement - it was because models of the world moved away from such notions as absolute time and space, and things started to be understood in relation to one another. Consider the relatively chaotic gaseous surface of the planet Jupiter that somehow produces the “Great Red Spot” that has lasted at least for hundreds of years. Another example of order emerging from chaos as a matter of course is the “Lorenz Attractor” - it is a fairly ubiquitous and even standard occurrence it seems. They are not binary opposites, real things are a continuum and they are best conceived, understood and explained as such.

Children manage to form identities from the dynamic world - sure it’s easier to mentally isolate when things are much more still, but that doesn’t mean we should ground things and restrict ourselves to the mentally easy just because that’s the easiest to understand. The mentally harder to conceive stuff still happens, but this is why the ancient Euclidean conception of geometry and the Pythagorean fealty to real and rational numbers paved way to advancements such as fractals, irrational and complex numbers. All disciplines of thought started with the simplistic and evolved away from absolutes - Plato’s “Eternal Forms” included.

A question to ponder: how do we know what motion is? What’s the eternal form for that? What is the frozen form outside of space and time for this absolute chaos of which you speak?
The problem with resorting to absolutes as the foundation of everything is that you immediately make the opposite impossible when it is clearly existent in everyone’s daily lives.

I assume the idea is that the templates are as vague as possible such as to well-enough fit all these infinite variations in a hand-wavey kind of way. I see this tendency all over the explanations of the worst ideas - that of standing back far enough until all things that would otherwise compromise such conceptions kinda meld into everything else and no longer stand out if you squint hard enough. That’s not to say the worst ideas have no validity at all, it’s easy to see where they come from, and all advancement needs to advance from somewhere. That’s why they say “the Devil” is in the detail - because all the divine elegance and simplicity of absolutes is undone by the details (and so of course it’s the fault of the details, as the Godly is defined a priori as infallible).

It can be discussed without reference to God or Christianity.

I move my head an inch.

There were an infinitity of things that occurred.

Existents cannot process infinity as aware beings, it would take forever to move my head an inch, and I or none of the constituents could exist. But they do.

Why? Because somewhere there are templates.

Perfection is simple. We see it every day as relativity.

In order to look at a beautiful tree, I must be standing at a certain distance to it. If I stand 3000 miles away, I can’t see it, if I just look at it microscopically I also can’t see it. To see it, I have to be in the “sweet spot”.

This is absolute. It’s called perceptual acuity.

Now, I really take offense, you’re still ad homming, at the idea that I’m “doing hand waving”. You even explain further that I’m a simpleton, that eternal forms aren’t badass or complex enough. They are very complex.

Your hand waving is in the form of denying that if something comes from something else, it came from nothing at all. You’ve handwaved over my novelty argument. If an existent has never had a substantiation, it came from nothing at all. I’ll put this in your terms, if an identity has never had a precedence or substantiation, and there it is, it came from nothing at all.

As for motion:

The substrate of existence holds everything, since existence is infinite, and infinities can not be counted, motion occurred as the process of existence counting itself. I give an equality: infinity = motion.

Complete babble is so effortless for you. It’s a pleasure to watch. :bow-yellow:

Exactly my own point.

Only I can’t decide if he makes the stuff up as he goes along [tongue in cheek], or if somehow his mind has actually come to believe that what I certainly construe to be “complete babble” in turn is a reasonable way in which to look at the world around us.

For all I know, he may well be worse than me!

You know, if that’s humanly possible. :wink:

Ahh… ad Homs again.

I suppose if all of you aren’t trolling, then I’ll just have to wipe the drool off your faces for you, like babies, and do the job myself.

Not only that but since I often complain myself about others here making me the argument, I’m being rather hypocritical in turn.

But, hey, there it is.

You make these rather obtuse, didactic arguments that I am not able to connect in any substantive way to the lives that we live.

And, over and again, I have asked you to bring your points out into the world of actual human interactions. You claim to have done so. But we are far, far removed regarding what this sort of argument consist of.

After all, what on earth are “Platonic forms” such that, if we do note human interactions, we are able to describe them materially, phenomenally, existentially?

Sure, you may well be a fucking genius. You may be encompassing human reality on a level that, philosophically, is simply over my head.

But all I encounter from you is a world of words. These words here arguing that those words there are true because the have to be. Why? Because the logic between them is largely definitional, circular, tautological. But the definitions almost never come down out of the scholastic clouds.

From my point of view, it’s either that or you are just fucking with us. Or, if not that, you live in your own little world. A world that is embedded almost almost entirely in how you put all the pieces together “in your head”.

And, clearly, I’m not the only one perplexed [or even exasperated] by your motivation and intention here.

I don’t fuck with people.

I’ll explain the infinity part more.

First you need to prove existence.

Well “nothing” is defined as: isn’t

So then you are left with the lack of nothing which can be termed “relationship” or “otherness”

The otherness of otherness of otherness, leads to infinite regress or metagress.

Since all existents exist in the same substrate, and they are infinite, then the mere act of holding all existents that can’t be counted is what causes motion.

I’m not only telling you why existence exists, I’m telling you why motion exists.

Note to others:

Seriously, does anyone here react to this as anything other than intellectual babble?

I challenge him to take these points out into the world. To integrate them into a social, political or economic context most of us will be familiar with.

And how on Earth does someone defend “Platonic forms” as anything other than an intellectual contraption?

How does anyone discern “intellectual contraption” as anything but an “intellectual contraption”?

Consent violation is not an world of words, nor is it an intellectual contraption… it is way more down to earth than anything you post.

Everything you post here about yourself is a consent violation from existence; this makes all of your lists a subset of my superset.

Allow me please to emulate this:

How does anyone discern “intellectual contraption” as anything other than two words in the dictionary? Is he able to cite the pages in the OED? And then translate them into Mandarin?

As with nonconsensual violation, consensual violation is merely a sympathetic metaphor for Kant’s categorical imperative in the fourth [and fifth] dimension.

Besides, everything consents to exists. And, once Trump is re-elected in 2020, we can at least double that. Also, since the set of all elections in a zero sum world was first broached by Plato in the Republic, it is only a matter of time before we establish this formally.

You seem to ground your beliefs and concepts in what you alone think and feel, or either you are simply trying to be unique… you argue on points that are based solely in your head, so debating them will always be one-sided… for you.

We all have a few concepts in our minds, that are unique to us, but you seem to have all of yours’ this way… and that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

I was giving you a compliment. Really.

This …

… is just beautiful. It’s poetry.

It defies any attempt at rational analysis. It transcends reason. It requires a pure reaction from the depths of your being.

Zeno’s Paradox… seriously?

Right, so you zoom in towards a microscopic view of a tree from 3000 miles away and: not beautiful, not beautiful, etc, etc, BEAUTIFUL, not beautiful, not beautiful, etc, etc?

Of course not, the beauty of a tree increases relatively suddenly as you approach near enough to see enough of it, the effect of proximity on the perceived beauty of the tree dies down to slowly curve off over a significant amount of distance, and relatively suddenly diminishes as you get too close - much like a bell curve of beauty plotted against distance. The curves are relative between each axis, there is not one absolute sweet spot, there is an entire area of relatively sweet spots that one approaches relatively and passes by relatively. There is nothing absolute about it - and before you blurt it out, no, “absolutely relative” is not absolute, it’s relative.

Also, perceptual acuity is to do with foresight, not seeing beautiful things or “absoluteness”.

Calling an idea “hand-wavey” is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the fallacy of arguing against content by means of appealing against the personality and so forth of the person arguing. I’ve been implicitly mocking you and your argument because they’re funny to me and it’s hard to believe somebody could really be arguing so intently in favour of your arguments - but never once have I used your character etc. as reason to doubt your arguments or detract from them, I have only ever used reasoned argument against any content I can find in your words. For this you should be appreciating my conversation with you, even if you might be sensitive enough to take to heart the manner in which I sometimes go about it. You’re fully permitted to do the same in return, how we each “feel” about our respective arguments and each other has zero value or less. I expect nothing more from you than logical content that is backed by nothing but measurable, repeatable and testable evidence wherever appropriate, however you choose to decorate it, which is all I am providing you and is all I ask in return.

Overall you are failing to deliver - for all the deserved credit I gave to you on that one occasion for form, even if not for content. You won’t get away with inconsistency in the only important regards.

Right, so motion = infinity, great. So now we have two things that defy “eternal forms”, superb! You have doubly undone your argument in relation to both the terms “eternal” as well as “form”, with evidently existent “motion” contradicting “eternal” and now “infinity” contradicting “form”.

You’re doing all my work for me…

A final thought:
If your primary sense was hearing instead of vision, you would not even give your argument a moment’s thought because sound is literally meaningless as an eternal form. Sound necessarily happens over time, it is not frozen, there is no Platonic form of the experience of the B flat just above 440 Hz by definition. You would do well to admit that so much in the world is known not just without eternal forms, but exactly because they can have no eternal form.

I’ll respond to the rest soon.

I’ll make a deep comment about your joke of Zenos paradox …

If you move an infinite number is steps to get there, you never get there.

If you do get there, you never took a step.

Think about this with quanta