Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Fourness is proven to not be an object.
Yet we utilize it daily.
Fourness wasn’t born; were it born without precedence, it would have to come from nothing.

So we know that we have tangible forms that we know aren’t objects, and we know through proof of contradiction, that they must be eternal (outside of space and time)

It’s not a disproof to say infinity = motion.

In addition to infinity equaling motion, forms must also exist in eternal states. (Otherwise they come from nothing - identity itself comes from nothing).

That’s right, it’s a pattern. A pattern is a particular relationship between objects.

Because it’s a useful pattern.

Eternal forms are not required. All one needs is the ability to recognize patterns and remember them.

People see groupings of four objects and it gets called 4.

People see animals walking in the woods and it gets the name ‘wolf’.

Motion is a changing relationship between objects - a pattern of change.

This is where it gets interesting.

So basically you’re atheistic about templates, essences, types and “ness”.

Someone can be so observant that they see the detail so much that they cannot call two maple trees two maple trees. The variation between them is infinite. That infinite precision to them would make each existent it’s own species.

What’s interesting about this from what I wrote above, is that it’s a lack of perceptual acuity, a true stupidity, that gives us types, retardation of many senses and intelligence…

You believe in 4 but you don’t believe in fourness.

These 2 maple trees are infinitely different from each other in composition space and time (even though theyre right next to each other, from the observers view one of them is in the past relative to another one, ahh so minuscule, but true nonetheless)

So the question I pose right now: what is the essence of this thing we call maple trees that transcends pattern recognition?

Is it our mental retardation or is there such a concept as mapleness, which again, is in a dimension outside space or time?

‘Essence’ is the pattern.

There is a concept of mapleness which we have defined. It “exists” as an identified pattern while people exist who think about it and remember it. Not eternal.

Sure. They could be considered different species if that was a useful idea.

What people do is to move seamlessly between levels of abstraction. At any instant you are looking at …

  • the trees which are unique individuals
  • two maple trees
  • two trees
  • a part of a forest

Pick the concept that is most appropriate at the time.

Why not wait and respond to all of it at once?

Your “deep comment” about Zeno’s paradox is just explaining what the whole flawed idea is. That’s not depth.

Your issue remains the same: you are thinking statically like a roll of film with still pictures - life isn’t like that, film is a representation of reality, reality itself is a continuous emergence unto itself. Zeno’s Paradox represents reality as static moments too, and the whole reason the different versions are invalid (of course Achilles overtakes the tortoise/arrows do actually reach their target/etc.), is because it’s a false representation of the continuity of reality. Done. Simple. Paradox resolved. No depth to be found on Zeno’s end nor on the end of anyone who can’t get past his paradoxes.

You seem to have a habit of using terminology differently to standard definitions without announcing this before doing so. Infinity is boundlessness, literally. Finite = boundaries.

Eternal derives from “of an age” or endlessness. Endlessness is without end/boundary in a more specifically temporal sense than “infinity” which means the same thing but can apply to other things like space and quantity etc. If anything, “eternal” is the one that can start before never ending, though not necessarily. The boundlessness of infinity applies to having no start boundary, no end boundary, no boundary at all by definition - it’s the one that never begins or ends.

I guess your “ruining” of my argument is kinda ruined, huh? #-o

And so it starts, I see this all the time: the reversion to repeating previous arguments and ceasing to take on new ones against it or acknowledging how previous arguments were already surpassed. It is at this point that the loser of the argument (yourself) reveals themselves as needing to double down on their emotional investment in their preferred argument, to confirm and thus reinforce through repetition the limited sense that it makes in their mind, instead of admitting the truth of the winning argument and moving and growing as a thinker.

Well, it was nice proving you wrong, but you don’t want that, you only want confirmation. Good luck, phyllo, I don’t think there’s anything more to be gained here.

Ok, let’s say I’m using non standard definitions.

When I think of infinities, I always think of mathematical ones first, you know, ones that start but don’t stop.

When I think eternal, I think that which never changes.

Oh , I just received news that my cousin died …

So I took a break.

Stop being so damn mean to me.

There has to be a solution to zero sum, consent violating realities.

Philosophic zombies
Hallucinating from eternal forms
Or hyperdimensional mirrors.

Necessity here will be the mother of invention

Condolences for your loss.

Mathematical infinities can be with or without a starting point - an infinite line starting at a particular point and extending in one direction or with no starting point (so extending in ‘both’ directions).

I’ll go crawl back in my cave for a while on this…

Thx for the discussion.

That sucks, man.

I hope you’re ok.

Caves are good - they force you to find and create your own illumination.

Stay too long though, and the rheumatism sets in.

I took it well… but maybe not subconsciously, because I’ve been “out of sorts” all day and couldn’t sleep last night.

So let’s whittle this down to bare bones…

Does information get destroyed in existence?

If yes, there are definitely no eternal forms, if no, there definitely are.

My personal take without argument right now, my mind currently is like a piece of jello… is that no information gets destroyed in existence.

Yeah! I won the debate!

If information ever gets destroyed, the first thing someone might think is that nobody would know.

BUT! There’s actually a proof that it doesn’t…

If it ever is destroyed, it couldn’t exist in any present state in the first place, as the present is a subset of its existence.

So: eternal forms exist

Specific information can get destroyed but information per se not so because it will always be there in some form or other in a physical system
This is because the system itself is information even if it is not understood [ all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge ]

I realized about 10 minutes after I posted that, that you’d come back and say that. So I gave myself a day to think on it. The key to eternal forms really is the knowledge factor. I would say that to the extent that there’s a cure for Alzheimer’s, then there are eternal forms. Currently, there isn’t, other than being possessed by a memory keeper, what some people might call gods. But as has often been stated through the ages, we can do anything with technology that we can do with the mind. To this regard, a cure for Alzheimer’s is not impossible.

Interesting thread based on a futile thought.

First of all presumptive reasoning reduces to the merit of the presumption, whether determining the substance of the hypothetical. There was a very long and drawn out discussion when St. James was still here discussing the Universalization of the idea of 1=.999999999~ or not which seemed seemed to drive some crazy.

Universals dictate the content of conscious manifested intent here, as in Nietzsche , the ego coming through in times of lack of substantiative evidence, and looks bad for the promoter of idealism, and such appearance I encountered with post ex-facto modern terms within which (context) meaning is established.

So a cross wire is created, and the presumption seems to violate the rule of leaving one’s ego behind.

Another form of the presumptive Universalization becomes evident through the misunderstanding around the ego appearing as a product of self realized factual acquisition.( in other words no one is on an ego trip here since it’s only the results of this apparent cross- wiring. Its only a post.modern sense of simulation what its at work here, for lack of what is termed substantive.

This is Middle Ages’ stuff , preceeding Nietzsche, and it was Him who concerned Himself with the issue.

Fractal Ontology
Nietzsche’s Glance at the State: Socialism, Nationalism, Universalism
Taylor Adkins.

In January of 1872, less than a year after Germany officially becomes a nation, Nietzsche gives a series of five lectures at the University of Basel on the future of our educational/cultural institutions. Six years later in section 8 of Human All Too Human we find Nietzsche discussing the future of political institutions and the fate of European nations. One of the questions that Nietzsche asks in his analysis of socialism, nationalism and democracy is whether or not these political orientations are strong enough for an affirmative investment in the development of cultural forces­, investments that one day will lead to institutions that address the true needs of all of humanity (476). Nietzsche always comments on different state organizations in terms of their speeds of evolution and lifespan.

Since all institutions are mortal, the relations of power between the citizens among themselves address a problem of the measurement of forces behind the repetition of a set of customs that guarantees the dominance of a state through the rigid adherence to one particular mode of cultural development (474). Arguing against sudden revolutionary change, Nietzsche proposes a slow evolution through inquiries utilizing the political concept of force along with a cultural program for the “gradual transformation of the mind” (452). Nietzsche insists that to begin to create the foundation for a politics of universal address, “the sense of justice must grow greater in everyone, the instinct for violence weaker” (452). In opposition to the passionate revolution of Rousseau, the task for free spirits will be one of moderation. Moderation is the becoming-decisive of thought and inquiry, and the free-spirit cultivates this quality by drawing potential energy to the promotion of spiritual objectives (464).

What may be even more complex for our examination is the fact that Nietzsche depicts socialism, nationalism and democracy to all have close affiliations and family resemblances. Socialism shows the dangers of the absolute state: it demands complete subservience of the individual through segmenting them as an organ of the community (473). It only appears in short reactionary bursts of terrorism because it has a short and violent lifespan. Nationalism is no better than socialism on this point, even if it has a mechanism to guarantee its duration. Nationalism imposes through education an unconscious reverence for the patria and its customs, and if it can instill a fiery conscience with honor, it can more easily ensure its reproduction in the following generation. The question of the benefits of nationalism and socialism must always be related back to the question of how strong these forms of government are internally and how much force they are capable of deploying for the affirmation of new goals, or as Nietzsche writes: “Whenever a great force exists­ even though it be the most dangerous mankind has to consider how to make of it an instrument for the attainment of its objectives” (446). If it is a question of justice, a socialist revolution will require a minor population the new generation to enter into a struggle with the dominant political state. Only after such a struggle—like May ’68—can the two parties articulate a calculation of forces. Based on this measurement, the existing state will either be able to reincorporate the reactive forces into a new totality or will be forced creating a new compact to prevent mutual losses through violent struggle. Finally, this compact will be able to guarantee the rights for a new social order, rights that may have the potential to satisfy an axiom of justice.

Democracy adds another element that disrupts the previous theorization. For both socialism and nationalism presuppose a dominant set of customs that “distinguish between government and people as though there were here two distinct spheres of power, a stronger and higher and a weaker and lower” (450). Democracy, however, puts forth the idea that the government is merely an organ of the people who embody the state’s power in their essence. It is important to realize that this essence constitutes the way in which the relationship between people and government reflects the organizations of other cultural relationships (teacher-pupil, general-soldier, etc.) (450). However, Nietzsche also thinks that “modern democracy is the historical form of the decay of the state,” a decay that is in itself an affirmative process (472). Democracy eats away at the layers of the state and the stratified cultural relations that they entail. This decay allows for the free spirit to collect potential energy for the invention of different institutions that will provide for the prudence and self-interests of all men.

Nietzsche’s utopia would consist in a dissemination of labor throughout the population by means of measuring how much suffering a group of tasks would cause the sensibility of different types of people (462). This cannot be achieved realistically insofar as we lack the instruments to measure the differences of degree and the capacity that people have for enduring different forms of labor. But the idea is a beginning. It offers a vision of a compact that assures the rights of everyone through the development of a form of life that affirms in a radical way the potential energy behind individual suffering. This minimizes the individual’s suffering and promotes a strong sense of self-worth along with the promotion of a contribution to society. It is with this type of society that individuals are able to exist on a level plain of power: each individual is capable of the same amount of value in his or her production of force, and so each individual is judged according to an immanent set of criteria that does not negate their individuality. This is the true foundation for a justice, insofar as Nietzsche believes that only among equals can the sense of justice begin to develop.

–Taylor Adkins

In my mind , you guys are indulging in a circular reasoning predating St Anselm, structurally grappling with the dynamic effort to dis-establish the zero sum effect, which unfortunately recurs in vengeance. This re-occurrence has come up again and again, most definitely in Nietzche, and
the most that can be said is what he implied about it in a moral sense. It is really beyond judgement, so it does present a kind of enigma, an enigma which has apparently been done away by game theory.

So I would give Ec the thumbs up in the post modern sense at this vantage point, and as far as the physical manifestation. of this argument can be demonstrated, the spatial- temporal continuity has still vestiges of nominal distinction of positing spatial determinants to temporal awareness, and as long as that is held, no overtures to unity can truly be demonstrated by utility.

The scope of the mind is greater than that of technology because you can think of things which have yet to be discovered
There are fewer restrictions with the mental than the physical which is why imagination is always ahead of actual reality

Initially, I just wanted to say that I agree with you, but of course the exception is intelligent machines with self awareness and autonomy and imaginations, which by definition are also technology.

What I find interesting to that regard is the idea of what separates us from them, are we just intelligent machines as well?

Doesn’t bother me if we are, so long as we have a degree of autonomy.

There are many things I love about life. Without limitations, we can’t experience any of this at all.

So I am comfortable with the idea of being a machine to that regard.

Think about how many millions of limitations are required to lean over, pull a rose towards you and smell it. Some people misinterpret limitations as cages, rather than truly embracing them. Autonomy is key though.

Everything that exists has limitations but for human beings the eternal challenge is to
find ways that bypass them whether they be physical or psychological or technological

[size=85]I am afraid surreptitious is right. Ecmandu is simply full of beans (hot gas) as per usual. As for his cousin, I would glad have let my cousin die to let his live. My cousin is an asshole.

But let’s be real Ecmandu has never been to hell for 4 million years as he said. He is a sad confused man and burdened with some form of mental illness. Addressing all his arguments is draining of energy.

To summarize, no we cannot magically create our own universes. First of all many people already acknowledge we did not consent to be here in this world. I don’t see how that would grant anyone god powers. Second, 75% of people are subhuman NPCs with no soul or thoughts. So we already partially have Ecmandu’s mirror universe, yet it is not a good one.

Finally, information does not exist. Steven Hawking popularized the idea of information being a thing. It is not.
Information only exists relative to intelligent beings able to process the information and connect it to memes. Without intelligence there is no information.
And yes, as surreptitious said, information, ie. intelligence may always exist. Which I don’t know why surreptitious said that because it proves reincarnation is real.

Anyway, in response to “If it ever is destroyed, it couldn’t exist in any present state in the first place, as the present is a subset of its existence.” The answer is no. I don’t know how any of that logically follows.

anyway, mixing up fonts because its boring.[/size]