Eternal forms are the absence of something coming from nothing at all.
It’s binary.
Think about it:
If it has no precidence in existence, even if something came from something else, it is totally unique without precidence.
Eihther it came from nothing at all (no exact precidence; completely novel)
Or is is an eternal form
It’s binary
Silhouette wrote :
“I’ve always had a problem with these conceptions due to the innate lack of Falsifiability. In Kantian terms, the noumenal world is beyond our ability to directly perceive. Anything of this kind, be they noumena, eternal forms or any “really real” world that lays beneath/behind/before/beyond/whatever we can’t test by definition. I do away with the need to postulate such realms.”
However , doing away with the terms coincidentally, may not do away the requirements implicit in their general understanding, to either connect the original hypo-Thesis, nor the assumtive thesis for a derivitive of partially synthesized( interweaving/variable models of functional learning.
The unitary nature of this type of interphase between necessary and contingent reasoning have not been completely eradicated as structurally synthetic between latent and patent
forms of reasoning.
There is no complete dissociation of the phenominal and the nominal, reversing hypothetical assumptions that preserve categorical absolutes.
That specification may functionally reset the conditions that may exceed Kant’s formative movement toward meaning.
Silhouette , it is just a mention that imply more then general terms can imply.
This irreduceability within the context of absurd reductionism , rests on simple but convincing fallibility , as with Russel and Ayer, and merely within limited specifications.
Maybe that’s right, maybe not. And note even if it is right, that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have a universe where 2+2=3, for all we know, it would be just that the set of things in the eternal forms includes options some used, some not, some used this ‘time’, some not. Some used here, but not there. And so on. But all this is just speculative. And any certainty on such issues seems very speculative to me. Our deductions may look peachy, but since they may be based on incomplete understanding, well, we simply don’t know.
But Karpel,
Those are just modalities of logic!
You can easily make a numerical grid where coordinates (2,2) find the number three.
So what you’re really saying is that a universe stupider than ours (that doesn’t understand modalities of logic) may think 2+2=3… as a universal.
I am saying that the rules might be utterly different there and that for all we know such a universe exists, did exist, might in the future exist or could ahve been made by God but God chose to make one with the logic we have and assume is the only one. Just as it seems obvious that Euclidian geometry was the only one that was logical, when in fact it turned out that non-Euclidian geomtries were perfectly logical in our own universe in fact. It has nothing to do with intelligence. What seems absurd often has to do with what we are used to and how things work where we are.
Are you saying that it’s stupid to define any of these quantities differently?
For example, build ordinal progression in the same way we would define “2^(n-1)”, the 1st term is 1, the 2nd is 2, the 3rd is our “4”, but their “3”. Define addition, perhaps, as what term you get to when you progress from the 1st term to the next, 1+1=2, 2+2=3, 3+3=4 etc. - there’s probably a few ways you can do this.
Like learning an intuitive way past any of our traditional understandings of mathematics is hard, such as conducting division in binary, this will only seem unintuitive as a result of having learned our traditional intuitions.
And yet it’s all perfectly logical.
Would such an alternative way of constructing mathematical progressions be stupid? Well you have to have some degree of our intelligence to work using it - what we understand as logarithms are a big help in the example I provided.
But it may in fact be even more intelligent than what we use already, since humans think multiplicatively far more intuitively than we think in terms of addition. This alternative system would match our intuitions with our intellectual understandings.
You could be even more crude, and mess around with the symbols such that 1-5 goes “1,2,4,3,5” or “1,2,↊,3,↋,4,5”, or you could have 2 mean 1.5, you could use the “equal” symbol differently - these all fall within what I offered as the “2nd” requirement for 2+2=4, nevermind the “1st” requirement of discrete experience.
The crude alterations only mess around with the specific symbology for the same quantities that make 2+2=4 with the symbols we use, which is trivial, but I offered the opening example to show a way of messing around with quantification itself. So you don’t have to mess around with the signifiers “2,+,=,4”, to make 2+2=3, you can mess around with how you conceive of the signifieds - the quantities that the symbols represent.
Other possible universes could easily do this.
KT’s example of seeing past Euclidean geometry is a perfect analogy for this. The Euclidean assumption of the metric plane isn’t necessary, it’s just convention. Draw perpendicular lines across a sufficiently curved surface and 5 of them will construct a regular Pentagon instead of a square. With infinite curvature - and we all know how much “the infinite” appeals to you, and the Euclidean construction of a square could form a circle - the square circle exists perfectly logically(!) Personally, I reject the notion of infinite curvature, because tending towards that would be tending towards curving the plane out of existence, but the logic in the construction remains.
Familiarity with messing around with all the assumptions you don’t think you’re missing pretty much opens up a a world of possibilities where literally anything goes “logically”. It’s only on traditional assumptions, or at least non-zero assumptions that logic will necessarily result in one answer only.
I think you’re mixing up existence and essence here:
Existence cannot come from nothing, it has to come from something: your second of your binary options - it’s always existed.
Specific forms of this existence come and go from nothing to something and back to nothing. Forms themselves aren’t beholden to causation, laws of physics, they’re just incidental patterns that change around as cause acts on existence.
Existence is causal: something can’t come from nothing.
Essence is acausal: forms come and go, morph freely from one to another as a superficial evaluation of what causal existence “currently looks like”. They’re a secondary product of valuation arbitrarily contingent on a valuer, not a primary and necessary product of the laws of nature, which are independent of valuation.
You see the distinction?
Existence vs essence.
You guys are arguing just to argue.
The counting numbers are a MODALITY of logic.
A culture that cannot abstract different modalities is stupider than one that can.
And now you are mind reading and poorly. Actually I think it is an important point, thank you very much. So, now I disagree with your argument, but have an added irritation that you choose to attribute incorrect motives to me. A consent violation you could have easily avoided. I think people overestimate deduction and I think this is very important. It is a very good type of reasoning, but I think certainly is so affected by the potential and known biases of being embodied creatures of a specific type in a specific place and time and with the limited potentially skewed perception we have, these are often not proofs at all. I think people run around with incredibly certainly over things that are not certain, and this 1) creates greater conflict and consent violation 2) makes it take longer for people to realize old models and theories are wrong 3) inhibits discussion. So, I am not arguing just to argue. Poor mind reading on your part.
I don’t think this is a relevent point, but since you didn’t integrate it into an argument with any points I made, who knows?
This is a pattern I find with you: you present a ‘proof’. I don’t think it holds. I object to it with specific points. You re-assert your conclusions and do not interact with criticisms. And now you add in ad homs.
I can’t work with that. So, I’ll leave you with your thread.
Karpel,
All you did was list about 4 different modalities of logic … they are not disproof of the well ordered set of counting numbers.
I then went on to clearly state that a culture that cannot abstract the counting numbers is stupider than one that can.
I actually did address all of your points.
I did not do this. Maybe S did.
I did not set out to disprove that.
Which has nothing to do with the points I made.
Nope.
Banned user for reason “A one day ban, to reassess why you are here… perhaps you need a break from the boards?”
» Ecmandu
FYI, in regard to any expectant replies.
Karpel,
You clearly stated that God could make us all not understand the well ordered set of counting numbers as rational. I made the argument that they by definition must be under delusion from God, by explaining that we have different modalities … i answered your question
^^^
I think that’s ecmandu. He’s probably using a hyperdimensional IP address.
Get him, mags!
It is me. I’m not trying to hide it.
You wait until mags gets home from work, buster.
She’s out of her depth, but she can push buttons on computers, I’ll give her that, the demonstration of what she represents as a power monger, and not a philosopher.
I’m at Subway eating fresh. I realized something upon closer inspection of the prep bar; the cheddar cheese slices are actually 3/32 thicker than the other cheeses. I never noticed this before. I’m getting cheddar from here on out.
provalone is the best. Sorry to inform you. You should ask them to stock gouda.
This guy is too funny! wants to debate, after he doesn’t debate… even though the evidence is presented to him in links and posts, then demands people debate… even though I’ve stopped engaging directly with the person, and shall remain as such.
Who’d want to debate someone they think is a rubbish Philosopher, and themselves a logistician… a twit, perhaps. 
I don’t want a reply… I won’t be able to stop laughing otherwise. 
@Prom… I’d rather not get him, engage with him in dialogue, or have any other direct interaction with this person. This is too funny though, lol.
Them’s fighting words. I offer to debate anyone here in the debate forums who makes such a slander to debate me, and they all run and cower.