Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

[Mentat]

I had always taken it for granted that nothing could disprove Solipsism, but now I think there may be an actual logical problem with it!

I understand that I could easily be wrong, and that's why I'm posting it: for constructive criticism.

Alright, now, the first think I might have gotten wrong is the name...Russell's paradox is the paradox that states that no set can contain itself, isn't it?

If so, then isn't this a huge (possibly fatal) blow to Solipsism (which dictates that there is nothing that exists, except for what exists in my mind)?

You see, if the Mind ≡ the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?

Any comments, constructive critiques, or corrections are appreciated. [:)]

[phoenixthoth]

first of all, that something contradicts an arbitrary contrivance such as logic means nothing. but i don't think solipsism leads to russell's paradox so that issue is moot.

here's russell's paradox. one can view it as a theorem and not a paradox. it's based on the tautology
[p→(q↔¬q)]→¬p.

p says ∃U∀x(x∈U). in this context, this means U is a set containing all other sets.

by the subsets axiom, S={x∈U:x!∈x} is a set.

q will be the statement S∈S.

note that for all (sets) z, z∈S↔(z∈U∧z!∈z). one can show that since z∈U is true for all z, this is equivalent to z∈S↔z!∈z. now taking z=S, we have that S∈S↔S!∈S, a statement of the form q↔¬q which was a consequence of p. conclusion? ¬p. in other words, it is not the case that there exists a set U such that for all (sets) x, x∈U. in other words, for all sets U there is a set x such that x!∈U.

there is, however, a class of all sets and a category of all sets and a category of all categories (in that situation the difficulty is relieved by the absence of an equivalent "subsets axiom" but i'm no category theory person).

when one moves to multi-valued logic such as one in which truth values aren't just 0 (F) or 1 (T) but anything in [0,1], the truth value of the statement S∈S under basic assumptions is 0.5; S is considered a fuzzy set.

in solipsism, one hardly claims that their mind contains all sets; just perhaps sets related to the universe. but, then again, if the mind is better modeled by a category than a set, then the whole question of whether it is somehow equivalent to the set of sets is moot.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) You see, if the Mind ≡ the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all? (SNoP)
The 'mind' can simply exist as the (small) reflector of 'all things' in the greater mind.

Just like you have memories, in you, that are not in your 'presently conscious mind', but you can re-call them. Your mind equvalently works out to be a "subset access system" of your own, greater, mind.

Put it this way, for the totality of 'mind' you still cannot concieve of the actuality of an Avogadro's number, as that number exceeds all of the Neurons, and neuronal connections, (even neurotransmitters rates, as individualized counts) that exist within a humans mind.

Your mind, like everyones mind, has limitations upon it, hence it would be difficult, at best, to prove (or disprove?) solipsism, by that methodology.

[phoenixthoth]

oh yeah, and about that snip/snop quote, it can exist it just wouldn't be a set in two valued logic.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
[B]first of all, that something contradicts an arbitrary contrivance such as logic means nothing. but i don't think solipsism leads to russell's paradox so that issue is moot.

here's russell's paradox. one can view it as a theorem and not a paradox. it's based on the tautology
[p→(q↔¬q)]→¬p.

p says ∃U∀x(x∈U). in this context, this means U is a set containing all other sets.

by the subsets axiom, S={x∈U:x!∈x} is a set.

q will be the statement S∈S.

note that for all (sets) z, z∈S↔(z∈U∧z!∈z). one can show that since z∈U is true for all z, this is equivalent to z∈S↔z!∈z. now taking z=S, we have that S∈S↔S!∈S, a statement of the form q↔¬q which was a consequence of p. conclusion? ¬p. in other words, it is not the case that there exists a set U such that for all (sets) x, x∈U. in other words, for all sets U there is a set x such that x!∈U.

there is, however, a class of all sets and a category of all sets and a category of all categories (in that situation the difficulty is relieved by the absence of an equivalent "subsets axiom" but i'm no category theory person).

when one moves to multi-valued logic such as one in which truth values aren't just 0 (F) or 1 (T) but anything in [0,1], the truth value of the statement S∈S under basic assumptions is 0.5; S is considered a fuzzy set.


Ok...I'm not that good at symbolic logic, but I understood most of that [t)]. Anyway, isn't the end result that there can be no set of all sets?


in solipsism, one hardly claims that their mind contains all sets; just perhaps sets related to the universe.


That's bad semantics, since the term "Universe" means "everything".


but, then again, if the mind is better modeled by a category than a set, then the whole question of whether it is somehow equivalent to the set of sets is moot.

I didn't understand the "category of sets" thing, could you please clarify?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The 'mind' can simply exist as the (small) reflector of 'all things' in the greater mind.


That doesn't help at all, since the "greater mind" would have to be a set of all sets", and would still fall into Russell's paradox...besides, Solipsism makes all things the function of my own mind, thus the thing that I'm supposed to be "reflecting" should also be a function of my mind...IOW, there is no objective reality, nothing outside my own mind.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
oh yeah, and about that snip/snop quote, it can exist it just wouldn't be a set in two valued logic.

How else would you have me establish validity? I'm not trying to discover "truths", just validity, and this seemed like a valid argument. But, is there some other way to check its validity by another method completely (besides logic)?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
That doesn't help at all, since the "greater mind" would have to be a set of all sets", and would still fall into Russell's paradox...besides, Solipsism makes all things the function of my own mind, thus the thing that I'm supposed to be "reflecting" should also be a function of my mind...IOW, there is no objective reality, nothing outside my own mind.
But you have missed my simple point of the fact that not all things exist in your mind simultaneously, (consciously) ergo you MUST be dealing with a 'subset' (Conscious) of the 'greater set' (Sub-Conscious) even if the entire 'greater set' is in your mind only!

[phoenixthoth]

the *blank* of all things just isn't a set unless you allow fuzzy sets to exist. the mind would just not be a set.


You see, if the Mind �ß the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?
could you substitute the word "universe" for "mind" in a nonsolipsistic theory? in essence, whatever you call the thing that contains (or is equivalent to) the thing of all things has the same problem the mind does in solipsism.

either way, the problem is resolved by realizing that the *blank* of all things that exist just may not be a set.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Category.html

anyway, if a theory (science, set theory, logic) can't make sense of the truth, it doesn't make the truth nontruth, it just points out limitations in the theory.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

From the Solipsist's viewpoint I would like to know how your mind goes about generating information that you, in your mind, are completely unaware of, prior to it's presentation to you, by another!

How does that work??

[phoenixthoth]

a modified solipsism is that reality is like a dvd and you are the laser beam that reads the disc. you're the only one that exists; everyone else is just a bunch of 1's and 0's on some disc (perhaps a hologram). the whole of reality is in some sense only present in one moment but the illusion of time is created as you (the laser) shifts awareness from one point on the "disc" to another. there are no other minds, just illusions of minds. perhaps the mind created this hologram and perhaps it didn't. maybe it wasn't created but has always existed out of time. generally speaking, i'm not sure if it is thought that the mind isn't generating stuff prior to your experience of it and there would be no others to present it to you. i'm not sure if it is thought that the mind is what creates things. perhaps it is the creator (the laser beam and the disc) and perhaps it is just the only perceiver (just the laser beam).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
But you have missed my simple point of the fact that not all things exist in your mind simultaneously, (consciously) ergo you MUST be dealing with a 'subset' (Conscious) of the 'greater set' (Sub-Conscious) even if the entire 'greater set' is in your mind only!

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. If we are always dealing with subsets of a greater set, that set would still have to hold all of reality at once, wouldn't it?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the *blank* of all things just isn't a set unless you allow fuzzy sets to exist. the mind would just not be a set.


What's a "fuzzy set"? Besides, the mind isn't really the set; all things that exist are "mindful" things, according to Solipsism, but then the mind itself must also be a "mindful" thing. That's my point.


could you substitute the word "universe" for "mind" in a nonsolipsistic theory?


No, the Universe is not an entity. The word "Universe" just refer to everything.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. If we are always dealing with subsets of a greater set, that set would still have to hold all of reality at once, wouldn't it?
The 'subset' presently being dealt with, is the activity currently going on in your mind, but that is not the entirety of the 'greater set' (in your mind) that contains all of the other things you can remember, even though that 'greater set' exists, presently, (dormant? or just quiet?) within you.

But the Solipsis determines that that greater set carries all of the knowledge that Exists, and then what?? presents that through others, to itself?? Why the need of the redundancy?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The 'subset' presently being dealt with, is the activity currently going on in your mind, but that is not the entirety of the 'greater set' (in your mind) that contains all of the other things you can remember, even though that 'greater set' exists, presently, (dormant? or just quiet?) within you.

But the Solipsis determines that that greater set carries all of the knowledge that Exists, and then what?? presents that through others, to itself?? Why the need of the redundancy? [/B]

Uh...you goin' somewhere with this? You're making good points, but they're scattered, so...what are you trying to say?

[phoenixthoth]

some people think the universe is an entity. not necessarily a conscious entity though some think it is but its consciousness doesn't resemble ours.

a fuzzy set x, to me, is a set such that there is another set y such that the statement y∈x is neither true nor false but some other truth value. for example, in russell's "paradox," you have S and the statement S∈S has truth value not equal to 0 or 1 and so if a set of all sets exists, you have to accept the existence of fuzzy sets. fuzzy sets and a universal set or crisp sets and no universal set. one can also show that the powerset of the universal set would equal the universal set and the cantor diagonal argument which usually proves that there is no function from a set to its powerset (which would show that the identity map from U to P(U) isn't onto which would contradict their equality) actually reduces to russell's theorem and the fuzzy set S; again, no contradiction if more than two truth values are allowed. i wonder if P(x)=x implies x is the universal set... the universal set itself, btw, is crisp though it has fuzzy subsets.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Uh...you goin' somewhere with this? You're making good points, but they're scattered, so...what are you trying to say?
Scattered?, Humm, ya mean like seeds??

Solipsism requires that the universe act in a redundant fashion with respect to "education of self", and requires that your mind contain the either the entirety of the Universe, or the knowledge of the entirety of the Universe which, on simple numerical values alone, it cannot.

As for the rest, simply put in your language of 'set theory', your mind and its functions, your consious mind, (as I previously said) "the subset" that is active in "the greater set" (subconscious) that is the 'entirety of your mind' which includes all of your memories etc. etc.

Does that help?
(perhaps what you need is really some time to think about it....sleep on it, see what develops tomorrow, or later still.......)

[phoenixthoth]

Solipsism requires that the universe act in a redundant fashion with respect to "education of self", and requires that your mind contain the either the entirety of the Universe, or the knowledge of the entirety of the Universe which, on simple numerical values alone, it cannot.

or that your mind is the entirety of the universe.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
or that your mind is the entirety of the universe.
And how then does it go about hidding 'itself' from 'itself'? as clearly we do not know the entirety of the Universe, right?
(or are you perhaps laying the claim??)

[phoenixthoth]

whatever appears hidden doesn't exist.
either that or perhaps its a kind of dissociative amnesia.
we are the entirety of the universe but are not aware of it (unless we are). i can control the sun no more than i can control my toenail growth. a mind doesn't have to completely be aware of itself, know itself, or control all of its parts.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
whatever appears hidden doesn't exist.
either that or perhaps its a kind of dissociative amnesia.
we are the entirety of the universe but are not aware of it (unless we are). i can control the sun no more than i can control my toenail growth. a mind doesn't have to completely be aware of itself, know itself, or control all of its parts.
Begs the question of "why" would we, the entirety of the Universe, do this to ourselves?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
some people think the universe is an entity. not necessarily a conscious entity though some think it is but its consciousness doesn't resemble ours.

a fuzzy set x, to me, is a set such that there is another set y such that the statement y∈x is neither true nor false but some other truth value. for example, in russell's "paradox," you have S and the statement S∈S has truth value not equal to 0 or 1 and so if a set of all sets exists, you have to accept the existence of fuzzy sets. fuzzy sets and a universal set or crisp sets and no universal set. one can also show that the powerset of the universal set would equal the universal set and the cantor diagonal argument which usually proves that there is no function from a set to its powerset (which would show that the identity map from U to P(U) isn't onto which would contradict their equality) actually reduces to russell's theorem and the fuzzy set S; again, no contradiction if more than two truth values are allowed. i wonder if P(x)=x implies x is the universal set... the universal set itself, btw, is crisp though it has fuzzy subsets.

So the allowance of these fuzzy (universal) sets allows for the Solipsistic approach, while the alternative doesn't?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Solipsism requires that the universe act in a redundant fashion with respect to "education of self", and requires that your mind contain the either the entirety of the Universe, or the knowledge of the entirety of the Universe which, on simple numerical values alone, it cannot.

As for the rest, simply put in your language of 'set theory', your mind and its functions, your consious mind, (as I previously said) "the subset" that is active in "the greater set" (subconscious) that is the 'entirety of your mind' which includes all of your memories etc. etc.

Does that help?
(perhaps what you need is really some time to think about it....sleep on it, see what develops tomorrow, or later still.......)

I've been "sleeping on it", and I still don't get exactly what you are trying to say.

[Jeebus]

The paradox stems from the acceptance of the following axiom: If P(x) is a property then:

{x : P}

is a set. This is the Axiom of Comprehension (actually an axiom schema). By applying it in the case where P is the property "x is not an element of x", we generate the paradox, i.e. something clearly false. Thus any theory built on this axiom must be inconsistent.
In lambda-calculus Russell's Paradox can be formulated by representing each set by its characteristic function - the property which is true for members and false for non-members. The set R becomes a function r which is the negation of its argument applied to itself:

r = \ x . not (x x)

If we now apply r to itself,

r r = (\ x . not (x x)) (\ x . not (x x))
= not ((\ x . not (x x))(\ x . not (x x)))
= not (r r)

So if (r r) is true then it is false and vice versa.
An alternative formulation is: "if the barber of Seville is a man who shaves all men in Seville who don't shave themselves, and only those men, who shaves the barber?" This can be taken simply as a proof that no such barber can exist whereas seemingly obvious axioms of set theory suggest the existence of the paradoxical set R.

Now if we applied this to the Mind we would say:

"The mind is false."

This four word sentence is confusing because it appears to be a single, solidified argument that contradicts itself. It is only one sentence. There is only one predicate and object. There is only one speaker of the sentence, yet something is seriously wrong with the statement.

Now, the thing I have noticed about all self-referential paradoxes is that they all seem to contain a strange thing called a self-reference. Notice in the example above that the words "This Sentence" is not actually a thing, it is a reference to a thing. Replace the pointer "This sentence" with the full sentence "This sentence is false," and you can see that there is more than one argument involved in the statement:
"The mind is false" is false.
Each time you evaluate the reference "The mind" you expand the argument and can see how it toggles back and forth: """The mind is False" is false." is false" is false.

By definition, all self referential paradox contain a reference back to itself. Although it appears that a given self-referential paradoxes is a single logical entity that contradicts itself, I am of the opinion that self referential paradoxes actually contain two logical steps: the resolution of the reference and the contradiction. A self-referential argument is just like the playground incident where two children have differing opinion.

Sentence A: "Sentence B is false."
Sentence B: "Sentence A is false."

Self-referential paradoxes appear as a different class of argument simply because we don't think of resolving the reference as a full logical step.

Thus this just shows that we cannont accordinly concieve and compare mixing Solipsism with the Russell Paradox. It just doesn't work.

[Mentat]

Jeebus, you didn't lose me until near the end. My question is: Why was your statement, "The mind is false"; that was not my statement.

[Jeebus]

I know it wasn't your statement, and it wasn't directed at you personally.

It meant that "The mind is false" statment is directly parallel to Solipsism. Since solipsism is defined as: "belief in self as only reality: the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible" -- You can relate that between the Russell Paradox sets to the solipsism logic.

That's why I said "The mind is false" is false because if you use the Russell paradox system to the Solipsism standpoint you can conclude that the belief in yourself is only reality is not really completely true using the Russell paradox.

You dig?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If you were to discover a "previously unrecognized-self evident truth", something new and groundmaking/changing in physics, or some other area of science/politics/law/art/cinema/etc. you would be demonstrating that "the Universe, had kept hidden, from itself, something" such that only the one "true" 'Solipsis' could enjoy, what?? the Game??

God's Grace in my life I have discovered one of those, ("previously unrecognized-self evident truth") and I can assure you, from what little(?) I know of reality, I am not a (or 'the') solipsis, cause I have clearly seen that I still need be;
"A student, who teaches(?)"

[Mumeishi]

You see, if the Mind = the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?

Its an interesting thought but we could use the same argument to prove that the universe cannot exist. And then where would we b...

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Jeebus
I know it wasn't your statement, and it wasn't directed at you personally.

It meant that "The mind is false" statment is directly parallel to Solipsism. Since solipsism is defined as: "belief in self as only reality: the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible" -- You can relate that between the Russell Paradox sets to the solipsism logic.

That's why I said "The mind is false" is false because if you use the Russell paradox system to the Solipsism standpoint you can conclude that the belief in yourself is only reality is not really completely true using the Russell paradox.

You dig?

Glad to see we're on the same frequency now.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Its an interesting thought but we could use the same argument to prove that the universe cannot exist. And then where would we b...

Actually, I dealt with this before. The Universe really doesn't exist as a coherent entity. There are things that exist, and there is a limit to the amount of things that exist. The sum total of these things is called "the Universe", but the Universe itself doesn't exist.

[Mumeishi]

Wow. You've thought of everything haven't you?

The universe doesn't exist... have to remember that one.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Wow. You've thought of everything haven't you?

The universe doesn't exist... have to remember that one.

Ha ha...no, the Universe doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the Universe", since there both is no "outside the Universe" and no "Universe", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'Universe'".

[Mumeishi]

Oh I wasn't mocking - I genuinely like your argument. It makes a lot of sense. But still - it was a bit of a shock to hear that the universe does not exist...

[phoenixthoth]

Begs the question of "why" would we, the entirety of the Universe, do this to ourselves?
which begs the questions (1) why ask why and (2) why did the chicken cross the road and (3) why does there have to be a reason?

So the allowance of these fuzzy (universal) sets allows for the Solipsistic approach, while the alternative doesn't?

it doesn't either allow it or not allow it. "it" can do whatever "it" "wants." it's not clear to me that the two have much to do with each other. but for how i'm percieving your take on solipsism, yeah, having a universal set that contains fuzzy subsets gels with solipsism.

the mind doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the mind", since there both is no "outside the mind" and no "mind", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'mind'".

[Royce]

Okay, the universe does not exist as an entity in itself but is simply a term that we use to mean everything that does exist. Right so far? Then what about the idea, or hypothesis, that the universe is a singularity, all that exists, exists within the singularity that is the universe.
When you are speaking of all that exists, are you speaking materialisticly or all inclusively, assuming that there is that which is not material yet exists?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
You see, if the Mind ≡ the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?
[:)]

The wording above is the reason you keep getting the response that this argument applies to the universe as well. Look at the comment above. It basically asks "how can the set of all things exists?" The universe is a word applied to the set of all things.

[phoenixthoth]

it doesn't matter whether or not set theory allows solipsism. (it does if fuzzy logic is employed, btw, and does not if fuzzy logic is not employed.)

euclidean geometry does not allow for the curvature of space-time either. so what?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
(SNIP) which begs the questions (1) why ask why and (2) why did the chicken cross the road and (3) why does there have to be a reason? (SNoP)
Now there's a well reasoned and intelligent answer, somehere..............I suspect the the word would be "Logic", and the clarity is that the Universe DOES operate in a logical manner, (is Known to) respective of Physical Matter.

O.K.?

[phoenixthoth]

i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic. either i can't take a compliment or i can't take a hint.

perhaps the universe operates in a logical manner, but what kind of logic?

just as a fairly specific for instance which happens to be related, how about the "logic" of the mind (which may be in the universe or the universe)? is it that there is no logic, some logic, or just an utterly mystifying yet impeccable logic? especially in regards to seemingly "illogical" things as being afraid for no good reasons, being "madly" in love, creativity, genius, insanity/psychosis, etc... if there is a logic to the universe, and the mind is in the universe, does that mean that psychosis is logical?

a couple of options, including:
1. psychosis is in fact logical but just logic that isn't understood not unlike a chaotic dynamical system which actually arises from real simple, well behaved functions. it seems really "mad" but in fact, it's totally predicatble and goverened by the logic of a function if you know the initial conditions.

2. psychosis is an example of something in the universe that is not logical. hence, not everything in the universe is logical.

2a. btw, this is under the assumption that the mind and psychosis are ultimitely based on the physicality of the brain. if you throw that out the window, the statement that physical things in the universe are logical is preserved but you allow that nonphysical things to be illogical. that would have interesting interactions with the concept of God.

1 and 2a combo: the mind is not ultimately physical yet psychosis is still logical but just logic that isn't understood.

is it possible for subatomic particles to be in two states at once? that must be how i am believing in all of the above at once. [o)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it doesn't either allow it or not allow it. "it" can do whatever "it" "wants." it's not clear to me that the two have much to do with each other. but for how i'm percieving your take on solipsism, yeah, having a universal set that contains fuzzy subsets gels with solipsism.

the mind doesn't exist, not as an entity in itself, and there's nothing (that I can think of) that's logically wrong with that. However, because of this you cannot say that "everything exists inside the mind", since there both is no "outside the mind" and no "mind", you have to say "the sum total of everything that exists, is called 'mind'".

But that is not what Solipsists say, which is why I felt safe making these statements about the Universe while holding my argument against Solipsism. You see, the Solipsist doesn't say that the collection of all things that exist is the mind, they say that everything that exists, exists within their mind. The Solipsist believes that only one thing really exists, their own mind, and within that are phenomenological events, which they had previously perceived to be "objective", but which are in fact illusions.

So, my reasoning on the Universe cannot apply to Solipsism.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it doesn't matter whether or not set theory allows solipsism. (it does if fuzzy logic is employed, btw, and does not if fuzzy logic is not employed.)

euclidean geometry does not allow for the curvature of space-time either. so what?

Euclidean geometry is not comparable to logic, is it? After all, I don't think anyone would have a problem with my calling their idea non-Euclidean, but people cringe at the thought that their idea is "illogical".

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
(SNIP) i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic. either i can't take a compliment or i can't take a hint. (SNoP)
ANd the rest of your above post hints to me you missed the last words of mine.....
Moi
and the clarity is that the Universe DOES operate in a logical manner, (is Known to) respective of Physical Matter.

If all is simply 'in mind', then belief in existence of 'in mind' is a self deception, as it denies the obvious connection of 'mind' and matter/brain, hence 'all matter', gravitationally, imperceptable to any/every one, but there......

[phoenixthoth]

the appeal to something being obvious.

it's obvious that all that is an illusion, perhaps an illusion created by the mind. there, another appeal to obviousness.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the appeal to something being obvious.
it's obvious that all that is an illusion, perhaps an illusion created by the mind. there, another appeal to obviousness.
Einstein's responce, but he noted that it was a persistent illusion.

It is generated by matter, not mind, (interpreted by/in mind by/in imagination) and if you should wish to indulge in the 'self deception' of it, you could easily decide that yours is the only mind that ALL of this is being created for, exclusively to teach you!

Elsif you could admit quietly that you recognize "others", and all of the rest of it, like the rest of 'us'...........

[Mumeishi]

Do universal statements have any meaning anyway?

The concepts we use to discriminate and describe the world are relative. Does it mean anything to say 'everything is an illusion' any more than to say that 'everything is small'? If it is an illusion, it must be illusory relative to something more real and this 'reality' had better have more solid evidence than the apparent reality.

Does it?

I think there is evidence that some of our perceptions have 'illusionary' aspects, and we discover this by using more reliable and accurate tools to study reality. I don't think there's any evidence at all that what we think of as reality (eg. that there is a body of matter that I am 'sitting on' that we call a 'chair') is a nillusion.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ahem the reference to illusion deals with Einstein's E = mc2 ergo m = E/c2 or; "all is energy" energy is both 'illusory' and 'invisible' (sorta) hence the idea of it being 'an illusion' stems from the reality that it is all just an interplay of energy.......

[Mumeishi]

Energy is real.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
[B]Do universal statements have any meaning anyway?

The concepts we use to discriminate and describe the world are relative. Does it mean anything to say 'everything is an illusion' any more than to say that 'everything is small'? If it is an illusion, it must be illusory relative to something more real and this 'reality' had better have more solid evidence than the apparent reality.

Does it?


This is called the "skeptic" response to Solipsism, and I made reference to it earlier. Personally, I think it settles the matter rather well (and Wuliheron used to post much the same type of philosophy), but - since Solipsism still exists, and since it's come up in certain threads where I wish it hadn't - I still think it'd be helpful to find a logical error in the idea.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Energy is real. And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s).......energy.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s).......energy.

But, with all due respect, what is the relevance?

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s).......energy.

You are giving energy a quality it does not have by calling it 'illusory'. 'Illusory' does not mean 'not solid'. Air is not illusory, nor is the food energy locked up in my dinner, nor a beam of light. To be illusory, we have to have a mistaken understanding of its true nature, so the 'illusory' aspect is really a state of mind relative to actuality - its not an intrinsic property of a thing like its mass or length or for that matter, energy content.

Some physicists might argue that energy is, if anything, the only thing that is real, although that's a bit too reductionistic for me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
You are giving energy a quality it does not have by calling it 'illusory'. 'Illusory' does not mean 'not solid'. Air is not illusory, nor is the food energy locked up in my dinner, nor a beam of light. To be illusory, we have to have a mistaken understanding of its true nature, so the 'illusory' aspect is really a state of mind relative to actuality - its not an intrinsic property of a thing like its mass or length or for that matter, energy content.
Some physicists might argue that energy is, if anything, the only thing that is real, although that's a bit too reductionistic for me.
"Air is not illusory", humm, maybe because it is a "s-o-l-i-d" as for "a mistaken understanding of its true nature", well that is where I started, define it! cause there aren't to many really good definitions of just what energy actually is.

As for 'illusory', well, a radio wave (AM) just passed by your head!!, did you see it?

[Mumeishi]

Air is a solid now is it? That's a new one to me.

Energy can be invisible to our unaided senses, that doesn't make it 'illusory', that makes it invisible (normally). Air can also be invisible, but it is not illusory either, it's a 'g-a-s'.

Energy. Energy is a property associated with a material body. Energy is not a material substance. When bodies interact, the energy of one may increase at the expense of the other, and this is sometimes called a transfer of energy. This does not mean that we could intercept this energy in transit and bottle some of it. After the transfer one of the bodies may have higher energy than before, and we speak of it as having "stored energy". But that doesn't mean that the energy is "contained in it" in the same sense as water in a bucket.
Misuse example: "The earth's auroras—the northern and southern lights—illustrate how energy from the sun travels to our planet." —Science News, 149, June 1, 1996. This sentence blurs understanding of the process by which energetic charged particles from the sun interact with the earth's magnetic field and our atmosphere to cause auroras.
Whenever one hears people speaking of "energy fields", "psychic energy", and other expressions treating energy as a "thing" or "substance", you know they aren't talking physics, they are talking moonshine.

In certain quack theories of oriental medicine, such as qi gong (pronounced chee gung) something called qi is believed to circulate through the body on specific, mappable pathways called meridians. This idea pervades the contrived explanations/rationalizations of acupuncture, and the qi is generally translated into English as energy. No one has ever found this so-called "energy", nor confirmed the uniqueness of its meridian pathways, nor verified, through proper double-blind tests, that any therapy or treatment based on the theory actually works. The proponents of qi can't say whether it is a fluid, gas, charge, current, or something else, and their theory requires that it doesn't obey any of the physics of known carriers of energy. But, as soon as we hear someone talking about it as if it were a thing we know they are not talking science, but quackery.

The statement "Energy is a property of a body" needs clarification. As with many things in physics, the size of the energy depends on the coordinate system. A body moving with speed V in one coordinate system has kinetic energy ½mV2. The same body has zero kinetic energy in a coordinate system moving along with it at speed V. Since no inertial coordinate system can be considered "special" or "absolute", we shouldn't say "The kinetic energy of the body is ..." but should say "The kinetic energy of the body moving in this reference frame is ..."
Energy (take two). Elementary textbooks often say "there are many forms of energy, kinetic, potential, thermal, nuclear, etc. They can be converted from one form to another." Let's try to put more sturcture to this. There are really only two functional categories of energy. The energy associated with particles or systems can be said to be either kinetic energy or potential energy.


The kinetic energy of a particle of mass m and speed v is ½mv2. The kinetic energy of a system of particles is ½MV2 where M is the system mass and V is the speed of its center of mass. One part of a system's kinetic energy may be thermal energy due to disordered motions and vibrations of particles, on the microscopic scale of molecules, atoms, and even smaller particles.
The potential energy of a system is always due to some other system exchanging energy with it by forces moving the system or parts of the system. Potential energy is a way of accounting for the work done by or on another system interacting with the system of interest. Gravitational potential energy is the work we must do against the force due to gravity to move an object to a new position. Once we have accounted for the effect of other systems we can treat our system as if it were "isolated", which is often convenient.
Systems may exchange energy in two ways, through work or heat. Work and heat are never in a body or system, they measure the energy transfered during interactions between systems. Work always requires motion of a system or parts of it, moving the system's center of mass. Heating does not require macroscopic motion of either system. It involves exchanges of energy between systems on the microscopic level, and does not move the center of mass of either system.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Air is a solid now is it? That's a new one to me.
Energy can be invisible to our unaided senses, that doesn't make it 'illusory', that makes it invisible (normally). Air can also be invisible, but it is not illusory either, it's a 'g-a-s'.
Humm find that really curious that you didn't know that the Atoms (that comprise what we call a G-A-S) are SOLID(S) little things, QUITE SOLID, that's why we have phenomenon like "Wind Resistence" (reguardless of your physics teachers instructions to disreguard wind resistence)

As for your posting on energy, care to show the rest of us the link it comes from, (something about copyright law) it helps if you reference what you quote/cite.

Now, please tell me what "illusory" means to you. (cause your thinking that "Air is a G-a-s" and that that therefore tells us that it isn't comprised of solids is really Illusory on your part!)

And a P.S. your quote does nothing to resolve the idea of "Energy being illusory" Nothing at all!

[Canute]

Mentat

I think you're posting a lot of good sense.

As someone said earlier this issue is all about self-reference.If solipsism is true and the Universe is just consciousness self-referencing, then by reduction that self-reference becomes infinitely regressive until at the limit there's nothing there at all. This is the 'Emptiness' refered to in Buddhism, claimed to be all that is 'noumenal' at the limit. (Although I'd say that Buddhism is not quite solipsistic or idealist).

In this respect Jeebus's 'fuzzy sets', which transcend the truth and falsity values of two-value logic (formal axiomatic systems), give the right impression of 'emptiness' as a concept (rather than as an experience), for paradoxically it is also 'fullness'. Such contradictions are the very stuff of non-dual philosophy, which asserts that two-value logic, or dual thinking, must always end in contradictions and paradoxes like Russell's. I'd say that the evidence clearly backs up this assertion.

Zeno's paradox of the race between Achilles and the tortoise can also be used to arrive at the same conclusion. Perhaps all logical paradoxes do.

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm find that really curious that you didn't know that the Atoms (that comprise what we call a G-A-S) are SOLID(S) little things, QUITE SOLID, that's why we have phenomenon like "Wind Resistence" (reguardless of your physics teachers instructions to disreguard wind resistence)

May I politely suggest that you brush up on your basic science. Solid is one of the three recognised states or phases of matter, the other two being liquid and gas. Sometimes plasma is included as a fourth state.
Is an atom solid? That is meaningless by the definition/description of solid given above since atoms are not made of matter, they comprise matter, they are not made of atoms. Also, atoms are not like little billiard balls, they are something like 99.99% (approximately) empty space with of a tiny dense nucleus of protons and neutrons and orbited by electrons. And these subatomic particles are not thought to be like little billiard balls either - electrons for example, are spread out in space like clouds or waves. So in what sense are atoms or air solid?

We have wind resistance because atoms have mass and thus momentum. Is that what you mean by 'solid'?
Solid, the physical state of matter in which samples maintain their shape and size. Some highly viscous liquids, such as cold molasses, flow so slowly that they seem to retain their size and shape and thus appear to be solids. X-ray examination, however, reveals an important difference in microscopic structure. Solids exhibit a regular arrangement of atomic, ionic, or molecular particles—solid objects have a crystalline structure. In contrast, the molecules of liquids are arranged irregularly—liquids have no crystalline structure. See Matter; Matter, States of.
From:
Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761571650)

I'm getting quite frustrated. Why am I debating with you? You claim to have special insights into the relationship between physical and nonphysical, yet you don't even seem to have a grasp of basic high school level science.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for your posting on energy, care to show the rest of us the link it comes from, (something about copyright law) it helps if you reference what you quote/cite.

Sorry, here's the link:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm#discrepancy

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Now, please tell me what "illusory" means to you.

I already have. i told you that to me, 'illusory' meant that we have a misunderstanding of the nature of something. It refers to the relation between a psychological state or model and reality itself. Its not an intrinsic property. The dictionary is in agreement:
illusion
noun
1 [C or U] an idea or belief which is not true:
He had no illusions about his talents as a singer.
I'm under no illusions (= I understand the truth) about the man I married.
My boss is labouring under the illusion that (= wrongly believes that) the project will be completed on time.
2 [C] something that is not really what it seems to be:
A large mirror in a room can create the illusion of space.
The impression of calm in the office is just an illusion.
]

From:
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39078&dict=CALD)

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
(cause your thinking that "Air is a G-a-s" and that that therefore tells us that it isn't comprised of solids is really Illusory on your part!)

BS. See above

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And a P.S. your quote does nothing to resolve the idea of "Energy being illusory" Nothing at all!

There is nothing to 'resolve'. There is no issue. I've given you a definition of energy in terms of properies of physical systems. There is nothing to suggest that energy is illusory. If you want to claim that, then you must first define whay YOU mean by illusory then provide evidence. And if your definition of 'illusory' is radically different from the one everyone else is using then we would be justified in questionioning whether it should apply.

[Mumeishi]

This is very interesting Canute,

Can you expand on this or refer me to some further reading?

Thanks

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
This is very interesting Canute,

Can you expand on this or refer me to some further reading?

Thanks
There's a few topics rolled into one there so I don't know which one you mean exactly. If you search under Zeno, Goedel, Russell's paradox, then you'll get a lot of useful arguments around the implications for reality of self-reference and paradoxes. You could also try Penrose, Hofstedter, Popper, Kant etc. They all discuss self-reference and its implications. I think Wittgenstein also ended up with the same sort of conclusions through analysing language. Plato's metaphor of the shadows on the cave wall is also worth exploring.


On Mentat's connection of self-reference to solipsism and idealism you'll probably have to make your way, as with my connection to non-dual philosophy, although I think Penrose explores it a bit (in relation to 'God' I think) in 'Shadows of the Mind'.

Canute

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
May I politely suggest that you brush up on your basic science. Go Ahead, I played a game with the Idea of "Solidity"... Solid is one of the three recognised states or phases of matter, the other two being liquid and gas. Sometimes plasma is included as a fourth state.

Now all of this...... Is an atom solid? That is meaningless by the definition/description of solid given above since atoms are not made of matter, they comprise matter, they are not made of atoms. Also, atoms are not like little billiard balls, they are something like 99.99% (approximately) empty space with of a tiny dense nucleus of protons and neutrons and orbited by electrons. And these subatomic particles are not thought to be like little billiard balls either - electrons for example, are spread out in space like clouds or waves. So in what sense are atoms or air solid?

We have wind resistance because atoms have Is defeated by Honesty, your admission to the recognition that atoms are solid mass and thus momentum. Is that what you mean by 'solid'? See above...intro....

I already have. i told you that to me, 'illusory' meant that we have a misunderstanding of the nature of something. It refers to the relation between a psychological state or model and reality itself. Its not an intrinsic property. The dictionary is in agreement:

As I understand 'illusory' it is "having the nature of an illusion" energy is a bit like that, electricity in a wire sort of thing, cant see it, just like the EMR qualities of atoms, illusory...

There is nothing to 'resolve'. There is no issue. I've given you a definition of energy in terms of properies of physical systems. There is nothing to suggest that energy is illusory. If you want to claim that, then you must first define whay YOU mean by illusory then provide evidence. And if your definition of 'illusory' is radically different from the one everyone else is using then we would be justified in questionioning whether it should apply.
I had said 'Air was illusory' because it still retains the quality of a solid in it's atomic comprisal, (that is a misunderstanding of its nature, falls into the category, but not really really strongly...I admit that too...) don't beleive that one, HS science?? try finding the energy levels required to break one (an atom) into the little pieces you would wish to debate upon the arrangements of........

Nature of 'energy' is defined, in Science, (and society) just don't think it's the best one yet.....maybe......maybe not...........

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Canute
There's a few topics rolled into one there so I don't know which one you mean exactly. If you search under Zeno, Goedel, Russell's paradox, then you'll get a lot of useful arguments around the implications for reality of self-reference and paradoxes. You could also try Penrose, Hofstedter, Popper, Kant etc. They all discuss self-reference and its implications. I think Wittgenstein also ended up with the same sort of conclusions through analysing language. Plato's metaphor of the shadows on the cave wall is also worth exploring.


On Mentat's connection of self-reference to solipsism and idealism you'll probably have to make your way, as with my connection to non-dual philosophy, although I think Penrose explores it a bit (in relation to 'God' I think) in 'Shadows of the Mind'.


Thanks, I've come across some of these ideas before and would like to pursue them in more depth. One thing that I'm not certain of is whether these epistemological problems are pointing to a profound, zen-like insight into the nature of reality or whether they are an inconsequential by-product of one system imperfectly modelling another ('objective') system.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Thanks, I've come across some of these ideas before and would like to pursue them in more depth. One thing that I'm not certain of is whether these epistemological problems are pointing to a profound, zen-like insight into the nature of reality or whether they are an inconsequential by-product of one system imperfectly modelling another ('objective') system.
Good point. I suspect most people assume that they are inconsequential. However it's worth noting that there are no such problems and paradoxes in non-dual systems. Even Mentat's problem of reconciling Russell's paradox with solipsism is resolved.

[Mentat]

Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.
WOW, and you work/live at this level all of the time?, the level where atoms do NOT represent solids, cause buddy you live in a world completley un-known and unknowable to the rest of all humanity.

If you believe that it isn't a solid, Pleeeease PROVE IT go bang you head on some "Atomic" concrete (A cement wall works fine!) and come back here and tell me it isn't solid!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by mentat
(SNIP) There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles. (SNoP)
Humm, what about the Alpha particle, know to humanity to the the MOST bound (state) arrangement of nuclie know to humanity, representing a SOLID, two protons, two neutrons, and you couldn't bust it apart if you tried, save having a powerful enough particle accelerator handy......

Not solid? right? (according to you and Mumeishi) then re-define 'mass' please as one of the simplest qualities of 'mass' is that it can be measured, hence represents an "Occupation of a delineated space" (and is energetically resistive to having that delineated space 'incurred' upon) by something that qualifies as a solid/matter.....

Please, fix the problem you are creating..........

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Plus, as I have just posted in the "Reality" thread, {adressing Mumeishe)......this........

Originally posted in reality by Moi
Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP) Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)
Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee) Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, and you work/live at this level all of the time?, the level where atoms do NOT represent solids, cause buddy you live in a world completley un-known and unknowable to the rest of all humanity.

If you believe that it isn't a solid, Pleeeease PROVE IT go bang you head on some "Atomic" concrete (A cement wall works fine!) and come back here and tell me it isn't solid!

A cement wall is not an atom, please reply directly to my reasoning.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, what about the Alpha particle, know to humanity to the the MOST bound (state) arrangement of nuclie know to humanity, representing a SOLID, two protons, two neutrons, and you couldn't bust it apart if you tried, save having a powerful enough particle accelerator handy......

Not solid? right? (according to you and Mumeishi) then re-define 'mass' please as one of the simplest qualities of 'mass' is that it can be measured, hence represents an "Occupation of a delineated space" (and is energetically resistive to having that delineated space 'incurred' upon) by something that qualifies as a solid/matter.....

Please, fix the problem you are creating..........

You are creating a problem, where it does not need to be. So what if you can't split apart an alpha particle? It is still not a rigid mass (nothing is at the quantum level). In fact, you seem to think it's composed of point particles...shame on you. "The rest of humanity", as you put it, seems to have discovered that quarks are also waves...where've you been?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Plus, as I have just posted in the "Reality" thread, {adressing Mumeishe)......this........


Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee) Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?

A proton isn't even a fundamental particle. Quarks, OTOH, are, and they don't hold their positions rigidly, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
A proton isn't even a fundamental particle. Quarks, OTOH, are, and they don't hold their positions rigidly, by any stretch of the imagination.
And the (amount of) time that they 'Exist' is....? and when integrated into protons they build, what? structure? rigidity? the "Illusion" thereof, solidity, with respect to time....Hummm

Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.

[phoenixthoth]

From Magick by Aliester Crowley:
I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain, that I might dream a dance of names and natures, and enjoy the substance of simplicity by watching the wanderings of my shadows. I am not that which is not; I know which knows not; I love that which loves not. For I am Love, whereby division dies in delight; I am Knowledge, whereby all parts, plunged in the whole, perish and pass into perfection; and I am that I am, the being wherein Being is lost in Nothing, nor deigns to be but its Will to unfold its nature, its need to express its perfection in all possibilities, each phase a partial phantasm, and yet inevitable and absolute.
I am Omniscient, for naught exists for me unless I know it. I am Omnipotent, for naught occurs save by Necessity my soul's expression through my will to be, to do, to suffer the symbols of itself. I am Omnipresent, for naught exists where I am not, who fashioned space as a condition of my consciousness myself, who am the center of all, and my circumference the frame of my fancy.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And the (amount of) time that they 'Exist' is....? and when integrated into protons they build, what? structure? rigidity? the "Illusion" thereof, solidity, with respect to time....Hummm


That last option: an Illusion.


Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental (which means the most elementary of particles).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
That last option: an Illusion. One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental Cheese, you are condescending (which means the most elementary of particles).
Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, ya know, exist!....the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly, their true nature being one of instablity, it is only in the Harmonic resonance of a protonic arrangement that stability is achieved.

BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world......

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?


I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.


Cheese, you are condescending


Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.


Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, ya know, exist!....the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly...


"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"?


BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world......

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.
there's that Ego..........P.S. what if I disagree with your definition of a solid, and stick with what it has always been, you know 'Solid' as in it 'lasts' (holds its shape) for a long time, like a Proton does.......

Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.
Hummm, actually only following you..........just less.........
"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"? Which is why I had asked you if you knew how long, but you evaded responce to the question.......

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. Prove what? that the Universe Speaks 'Solid', it's done! and I have NO NEED to prove what has already been proven! By 'Others' BTW, I just know of there work..... I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.

But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you

Originally posted by mentat
Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.


__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

-Albert Einstein

so....apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!

Have a nice evening...........and please, don't waste any of your time.......

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you



so....apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!


Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms.


Have a nice evening...........and please, don't waste any of your time.......

A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms. Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us....



A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.
Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And here I thought you was a Christian. Crowley is cetainly an interesting character. Do you find this philiosphy persuasive?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cited from; TheMcGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology
Version 2.0
Copyright © 1998 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved
DynaText Copyright © 1990-1997 Inso Corporation.

(titled; "Quarks")
The basic constituent particles, of which "elementary" particles are now believed to be composed. Theoretical models built on the quark concept have been very successful in explaining and predicting many phenomena in particle physics. Please I am NOT trying to "rub anything in", by simply to ensure that the "Current Thought Path" is clear....

....Followed by this informative look at 'time'....
A successful experiment must have: (1) a very high-intensity incident proton beam to produce a sufficient amount of J particles for detection; and (2) the ability, in a billionth of a second, to pick out the J/psi ® e- e+ pairs amidst billions of other particles through the detection apparatus.

and empirically this restriction was found to lead to a suppression of the decay rate resulting in a long lifetime and narrow width.
Understandably, in these kinds of studies the idea of a billionth of a second as 'Long' is quite acceptable as (If I recall it right) some of them have lifetimes in the orders of 10-40 (thereabouts) of a second...so a billionth is 'long', in comparision, but in comparision to the particle it forms, the proton, well..."stable" particle is the word that replaces 'solid' particle, but then 'stability' is "The ability to maintain shape", so is 'solidity', 'impact resistive' is simply a "Bonus upon the proving" that the article in question is indeed rather 'solid', and in the terms we humans can relate to, for I (too?) have knowledge of just what "hitting your head on a piece of concrete" really feels like, "Solid" is a good description, I had thought (too)........

Reality contains solids......An "illusion" generated by/in the 'Light' (EMR)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us....


Impact-resistance may indeed be produced, but that doesn't make something solid (at least, not by definition). Solid is a state of matter. It is a state in which the particles that make up this "solid" entity must hold rigid formation. Now, while an atom could be deemed "unchanging in shape" (barring decay and such things) and "impact-resistant", it still cannot be deemed "solid", because the definition of "solid" requires more out of it.


Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

I appreciate that you are being reasonable about this. One problem though: What in the world does age have to do with it?

[Mentat]

As to your other post (the one just above my previous one), my response is:

1) Just because he called them the constituent parts of "elementary particles" doesn't mean that that's how they are usually referenced. In any pop-sci book you can check out (any current one, anyway) they will tell you that the elementary particles are quarks and leptons. In fact, if you were to go to a site on the internet that displays the Standard Model, they'd tell you the same thing.

2) I don't get the point about how long a proton lasts. What are you trying to say?

[Mumeishi]

What was the subject of this thread again?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
What was the subject of this thread again?

I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't going to say anything since I'm sort of enjoying this side-track...

Mr.Robin Parsons could start a new thread on the subject of solidity, if he wanted, since I want to re-direct this thread soon.

[Mumeishi]

Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread

'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally found at this site (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary), Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

[Mumeishi]

Let's move on...please.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread
'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'
followed by;
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Let's move on...please.
Follow your own advise please..............because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves....and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well.......you do it to yourself..........

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either....nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"....how sad, and un-Scientific......

[Canute]

If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing? What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally found at this site, Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...

"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion.

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing?


E.i.N.S. --> "...how does one avoid concluding that it isn't made of anything".

These to statements are semantically equivalent, but I don't want any confusion. There is no thing called "nothing", and thus there isn't anything that is made out of such a thing. However, if something is truly fundamental the it wouldn't be made out of anything (and could thus, and only thus, be said to be "made of nothing").


What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

If there is something that is ultimately irreducible, then it isn't "nothing". Remember that, please; too many arguments have been started over this point in the past.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...
"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more Way LESS importantly, as the "Model for exemplary solidity" is the PROTON, NOT the quark! importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion. Words in my mouth???, NO! I said PROTON! the above is proven FASLE in respect of Protons inasmuch as the energies required to "bust em up", But maybe you just don't know anything about that........

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way. Are you still talking about quarks? or Protons? in this statement, cause if your saying shape in a proton is changing over time, please PROVE IT!

EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel.....sticky......

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
followed by;

Follow your own advise please..............because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves....and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well.......you do it to yourself..........

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either....nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"....how sad, and un-Scientific......

Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault [t)]) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by mentat
Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it.........(by your hand)...

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel.....sticky......

You see how this is all that showed up when I hit "quote"? That's because you typed within the quote-box again...please don't do that, it makes it very hard to respond coherently.

As it is, the proton may be your model for solidity, but a while ago it was the atom, and it isn't really relevant either way. Neutrons have been shown to posses exactly those "wavicle" properties as the fundamental quarks have, except at a less noticable level. Protons must be the same (though I don't personally know for sure if experiments have been conducted on the proton).

I never mentioned the ability to "bust up" a proton, but the ability to deform it. Ever heard of "decay"?

Last, but not least, when I remarked about its "shape" I was talking about the fact that the proton may be a hadron of point particles, or it may be a hadron of vibrating strings. It (the whole proton (though that's like speaking of "the whole solar system" as a seperate entity from "planets revolving around star", IMO)) also "changes" form to be a "wave" in some experiments, while it shows up as a "particle" in other experiments (again, this is an assumption, but it is based on having actually read about the experiments done on Neutrons which are hadrons too).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it.........(by your hand)...

Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on.

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you.

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on. And what I would really like to know (possible the Mentors too) is how he kept it from registering the EDIT!...cause if you look at my posting, just below his "Lets move on", you will see that I had Captured his Ridicule of me (Insult) so his having edited his post "Sans notation", well really suspicious, don't ya think? nevermind I can no longer trust him for anything he types on these pages unless I keep copies of every single thing, OYE he ain't worth it!!!
EDIT: Oooops, my mistake he deleted the insulting one, I got it now...

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, What part, the part where I apologised to you??? that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you. Insecure? why don't you try reality, nothing to do with intelligence, But with "KNOWLEDGE" as that is a time dependant aquisitional 'thing', so age, does make a (for your sake I put "potential") difference.

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, Start back at "knowledgable" please....wisdom's another thing altogether) but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF thats true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45........get it?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heck I even got the error/EDIT wrong, mumeishi's ridicule, it's still there....
But while I am here, I had gone looking and found this...
(as I do want for accuracy)

Originally found at this (http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/pdk.html) site..

Because the exchanged particle is so heavy, the proton lifetime predicted by grand unification models is extremely long... about 20 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe!

No events have been observed and a limit on the lifetime has been set to be over 10^(33) years

the bottom statement coorelates to other sites "times" for proton decay, the 1033 years, others range it at 6.5 x 1031 years, but clearly, a long duration particle.

Clearly I had had it wrong when I had stated that it was in the 10to the 40's something as it is some time shorter then that..........

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF thats true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45........get it?

You obviously missed the point.

First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment.

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you.

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment. Ahem, any reference to age, once introduced as it has been in this conversation, which (BTW) is about to cease, is taken as "in reference to the conversations direction". (that a Normal practise for most people) I would have thought you 'capable enough' to recognize thusly, and NOT try to use debating tactics with me, again, but......

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you. It was an e-x-a-m-p-l-e to make the point that, (BY YOUR ADMMISSION) you hadn't understood, or so you said....

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I (Erroneously, as they are not interchangable, one is a product of the other...maybe!) use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.
You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that, after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.

The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they aquire in simply being alive.

As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgement (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ([6)]) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".

After all, Smart people Intelligent people, Knowledgable people, and even Wise people (an Oxymoron? he hee [6)]) share what they know, that sorta flattens the curvatures that have been getting smaller and smaller with the increasing populations.........

[Canute]

Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Canute
Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.
Well, I would agree with the first part, "wrong at any age" is definitely real, as there is no 'age' that brings 'perfection' of action/activity/speach......but not with the last line, as that ends up as 'not educational' nor 'good modelling', but usually simply an indication of someone with either, 'no answer', or 'not the patience' to help the other to see simply their viewpoint.
(Sometimes I have "lacked the patience" too...sooo.........)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that


My point is that I don't need to exceed the amount of your lifetime in order to exceed the amount of your knowledge.


...after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.


It's called a Working Assumption. I wouldn't post it if I didn't want you to try and prove it wrong. I'm open to any logical debate on the matter, but that's not what I'm getting from you.


The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they aquire in simply being alive.

As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgement (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ([6)]) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".


Even if that person is the oldest man alive. I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm trying to get you to stop making statements about people's ages since this can only serve to both offend the younger person and weaken your stance (by making you seem arrogant, and seem like you think you are justified in being arrogant because you're older).

I'm sorry if it bothers you for me to disagree with you, but that's the purpose of the forum: logical debate (not "I state what I think and you state what you think; we all make funny remarks about each other's views and move on").

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
My point is that I don't need to exceed the amount of your lifetime in order to exceed the amount of your knowledge.
O.K...And my point is that time is going to prove you wrong......Who's opinion do you think is more qualified? (And why?...then again, don' respond, please!)

It's called a Working Assumption. I wouldn't post it if I didn't want you to try and prove it wrong. I'm open to any logical debate on the matter, but that's not what I'm getting from you. Possibly? because you are not presenting it as an "open assumption" but rather as a conclusion...my opinion...

Even if that person is the oldest man alive. I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm trying to get you to stop making statements about people's ages since this can only serve to both offend the younger (Why? are you offended by the truth? by your own age? what is off-end(ing) you?) person and weaken your stance This is contrary to what you have written below, as this is not supposed to be about stances, but 'facts of Science' and "The description that approximates the truth of those scientific observations" the best, it is NOT 'won' by "Stance" it is learned in exchange... (by making you seem arrogant, and seem like you think you are justified in being arrogant because you're older).

I'm sorry if it bothers you Not in the least! for me to disagree with you, but that's the purpose of the forum: logical debate (not "I state what I think and you state what you think; we all make funny remarks about each other's views and move on"). Is that what your exclusively doing??

Ab BTW "....Justified in being arrogant...." How is attempting to ensure that 'the best possible answer is presented' being 'arrogant'? arrogance presents itself as right because it says it is, the path I have followed is to attempt to show the "...description that approximates the truth of those scientific observations..." as in mumieshi attempted to ridicule me with one of the most common lines in an internet science forum, "You think all Science is wrong...." that I followed up on by simply posting the right information (dictionary reference) (as best as I could) and you, "couched immaturity" as you are showing yourself to be(?), call me arrogant for it?? what an arrogant (somewhat educated/book-read) little Boy you truly are presenting yourself as....no wonder it is so difficult for you.....it is really becoming obvious that your opinion on age seems to be the only way you will accept it, maybe we can talk again when your in your twenties + +.....cause as I stated and clearly, Originally posted par moi
(SNIP)...which (BTW) is about to cease.....(SNoP)

C:\Ya.*

[Sikz]

You see, if the Mind �ß the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?

Isn't existence relative? The mind itself cannot exist at all from the perspective of outside the mind. However, from inside the mind the mind is ALL that exists. The paradox, taken this way, comes closer to supporting the idea than disproving it.

[Canute]

I'd say you've got something there. The Cosmos is also the set of all sets. I wonder if that's a coincidence. They're the only two things whose existence is so self-referential that it doesn't seem to be logical.

[phoenixthoth]

there is an article on a different kind of TOE in which mathematical existence is postulated (or conjectured) to be physical existence. we may be some mathematical component called self aware structures in a larger structure. the set of all sets, which i repeat can exist in fuzzy logic, seems way more adequate than necessary to capture not only our universe but a multiverse where each universe operates differently.

the thing about self-referentialism is interesting.

let x be a single word.

define D recursively:
D(x,1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of x.
for n>0, D(x,n+1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of all words in D(x,n).

if {x}∩D(x,1)!=Ø then the definition is self-referential and i'll bet most would consider it useless.

i also bet that for all x, there is an n such that {x}∩D(x,n)!=Ø so all words are, in that case, defined somewhat self-referentially.

i know it's a stretch, but i bet there are a few words that "generate" all other words along with the rules of grammar. i wonder if those generators would be synonyms and how many there are.

anyway, i suppose this article has to do with spooky action at a distance; it's about the hologramic theory of the universe:
http://www.water-consciousness.com/must/must_article33.htm
i know this is a stretch, but...

The holographic paradigm also has implications for so called hard sciences, like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

this sounds a lot like solipsism to me, though solipsism i think postulates that there is only one consciousness. i've kind of melded the two into the suspician that it is just one consciousness all connected though there appears to be separation analogous to the percieved separation between islands in the ocean: under the "awareness barrier" (ie the water), it's all connected.

what would be a good name for this island? phoenix.

what would be a good name for the whole consciousness, if it is all connected? hmmm... i think people have been giving it names for a while now; take your pick.

[Canute]

Welcome to Buddhism.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
I'd say you've got something there. The Cosmos is also the set of all sets. I wonder if that's a coincidence. They're the only two things whose existence is so self-referential that it doesn't seem to be logical.

The cosmos is not a set of sets. It doesn't exist as its own entity, and thus needn't be referred to seperately at all (it is merely a convenient way to refer to everything all at once).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
there is an article on a different kind of TOE in which mathematical existence is postulated (or conjectured) to be physical existence. we may be some mathematical component called self aware structures in a larger structure. the set of all sets, which i repeat can exist in fuzzy logic, seems way more adequate than necessary to capture not only our universe but a multiverse where each universe operates differently.

the thing about self-referentialism is interesting.

let x be a single word.

define D recursively:
D(x,1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of x.
for n>0, D(x,n+1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of all words in D(x,n).

if {x}∩D(x,1)!=Ø then the definition is self-referential and i'll bet most would consider it useless.

i also bet that for all x, there is an n such that {x}∩D(x,n)!=Ø so all words are, in that case, defined somewhat self-referentially.

i know it's a stretch, but i bet there are a few words that "generate" all other words along with the rules of grammar. i wonder if those generators would be synonyms and how many there are.

anyway, i suppose this article has to do with spooky action at a distance; it's about the hologramic theory of the universe:
http://www.water-consciousness.com/must/must_article33.htm
i know this is a stretch, but...


this sounds a lot like solipsism to me, though solipsism i think postulates that there is only one consciousness. i've kind of melded the two into the suspician that it is just one consciousness all connected though there appears to be separation analogous to the percieved separation between islands in the ocean: under the "awareness barrier" (ie the water), it's all connected.

what would be a good name for this island? phoenix.

what would be a good name for the whole consciousness, if it is all connected? hmmm... i think people have been giving it names for a while now; take your pick.

Well...lifegazer would just call it "the Mind". This sounds a lot like his beliefs.

[phoenixthoth]

(snoop)It [the cosmos] doesn't exist as its own entity(crop)

what does exist as its own entity and how do you know?

how do you know the cosmos doesn't exist as its own entity?

(and what i'm mainly getting at is...) how do you know the mind exists as its own entity while the cosmos does not, if that is your position?

using russell's theorem in two-valued logic, the set of all sets doesn't exist as its own entity either; so i can see the similarity, at least superficially, between your version of the "not as its own entity" cosmos and the universal set. anyway, though, if the universe is not black and white, a universal set can exist which would appear to remove the achilles heel from solipsism and any attempt to argue with the "paradox" to prove the cosmos can't exist if it is likened to the universal set.

when the facts contradict the axioms, change the axioms. adding a third truth value is sufficient to resolve russell's paradox and poof, the universal set could be the universe or the mind. indeed, if there's a bijection of some sort between the universe and the universal set and the mind and the universal set, then there would be a bijection between the universe and the mind. furthermore, in my investigation of the universal set, i argued that any set in bijection with U is U, hence we would have a stronger statement than bijections:
universe=U=the mind.
if all my premises + 3 valued logic are working right, that is.

here's how i think three valued logic would work:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=2&t=181&st=&&#entry527

by the way, i think some easterners, perhaps buddhists, have a third answer other than yes/no or true/false. mu. this could be viewed as the third truth value and as far as i can tell it removes several paradoxes. the sacrafice is that not all statements are either true or false. but that seems to gel with the "real world" anyway, doesn't it?

does a tree falling with no one to hear it make a sound? muuuuuuu.

btw, what are good references to buddhism; i figure i should read some of it...

yeah, the hologram is kind of like their view of the illusion. where i'm at in my research now is what's outside the hologram??

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what does exist as its own entity and how do you know?

how do you know the cosmos doesn't exist as its own entity?


Because no entity can contain itself and I equated "cosmos" with "Universe" which is semantically equal to "everything"...ergo, it would have to contatin itself.


(and what i'm mainly getting at is...) how do you know the mind exists as its own entity while the cosmos does not, if that is your position?


Well, my position is that the mind of the Solipsistic paradigm is supposed to exist as its own entity.


using russell's theorem in two-valued logic, the set of all sets doesn't exist as its own entity either; so i can see the similarity, at least superficially, between your version of the "not as its own entity" cosmos and the universal set. anyway, though, if the universe is not black and white, a universal set can exist which would appear to remove the achilles heel from solipsism and any attempt to argue with the "paradox" to prove the cosmos can't exist if it is likened to the universal set.

when the facts contradict the axioms, change the axioms.


Ah, and that's the kicker. There are no facts that support the Solipsistic paradigm. There are just no facts that contradict it either.


adding a third truth value is sufficient to resolve russell's paradox and poof, the universal set could be the universe or the mind.


What is the third truth value, and how does it resolve russell's paradox?


here's how i think three valued logic would work:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=2&t=181&st=&&#entry527

by the way, i think some easterners, perhaps buddhists, have a third answer other than yes/no or true/false. mu. this could be viewed as the third truth value and as far as i can tell it removes several paradoxes. the sacrafice is that not all statements are either true or false. but that seems to gel with the "real world" anyway, doesn't it?


But, what does "mu" mean?

[phoenixthoth]

Because no entity can contain itself and I equated "cosmos" with "Universe" which is semantically equal to "everything"...ergo, it would have to contatin itself.
why not?



Ah, and that's the kicker. There are no facts that support the Solipsistic paradigm. There are just no facts that contradict it either.
maybe you're an agnostolipsist then? [6)] there's someone who posts in "what's the proof that god exists" whose name starts with mu who has decided that there must be a default position when there isn't evidence either way having to do with which explanation is simpler and other things. i'm of the mind that there is no default. there's no question that polyism (aka, eg, science) is more useful than solipsism but that, to me, doesn't prove its correctness in the grand scheme of things; it just proves it's more useful. similarly, an auto repair man doesn't need to know the theory of everything to fix the car whose forces are predicted by but that doesn't mean a more satisfying under-picture of reality isn't closer to the truth.



What is the third truth value, and how does it resolve russell's paradox?
in russel's theorem, you have a set S such that S ∈ S if and only if S ! ∈ S. if S ∈ S is true or false, the if and only if is false. this false was the consequent of the premise, "there is a set of all sets." the theorem proves that no set can exist.

however, in 3-valued logic (not to mention fuzzy logic), a third truth value makes things different:
let P be the statement the universal set exists and is a set and let Q be S ∈ S.
consider P -> (Q <-> ~Q) which is the symbolic form of russell's theorem. now, if Q is T or F, then we have the following conclusion:
[ P -> (Q <-> ~Q) ] -> ~P. this actually works for any P and Q in 2 valued logic but in this case it proves that there is no set of all sets. what if we let P possibly be T, F, or M and Q possibly be T, F, or M? can any definitive conclusions be made?
(i'm referencing my article on 3-valued logic i mentioned earler here.)
the following crappy table starts with (truth values for P and Q)||(truth values for Q <-> ~Q)||( [ P -> (Q <-> ~Q) ] )||( [ P -> (Q <-> ~Q) ] -> ~P ):
1. TT||F||T
2. TM||M||M
3. TF||F||T
4. MT||F||M
5. MM||M||M
6. MF||F||M
7. FT||F||T
8. FM||M||T
9. FF||F||T

note how the final statement is no longer a tautology (ie always T). hence it no longer conclusively proves ~P, ie no universal set. it is M in the cases when (PQ) are (TM), (MT), (MM), and (MF), which correspond to yes universal set & maybe S &isin; S, maybe there is a universal set & S &isin; S, maybe there is a universal set & maybe S &isin; S, and maybe there is a universal set and S ! &isin; S.
see the scattered remains of my first drafts regarding U here:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=SF;f=2




But, what does "mu" mean?
what does T mean? what does F mean? mu is just the truth value that isn't true or false. one could also take it to mean maybe (undecidable with given premises) and one could also take it, in response to a question, as "that's an absurd question to my language that it can't answer definitively."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
why not?


Since an entity can be said to contain many things, but never itself...I don't understand how you could work it so that an entity contained itself. A jar (fore example) may contain water or anything else you wish to put in it, but you could never put it inside itself, could you?


what does T mean? what does F mean?


T means that the proposition is true...that it should be held as correct until disproven. False means that it is not T. What can "mu" mean? If "mu" doesn't mean T, then it means that "T is not the case" (right?) and must thus be equal to F, according to my definitions thereof.


mu is just the truth value that isn't true or false. one could also take it to mean maybe (undecidable with given premises)


If something is undecidable then it is true "if and only if" some other proposition, isn't it?


and one could also take it, in response to a question, as "that's an absurd question to my language that it can't answer definitively."

But something that is assigned a truth value is answered definitively. If you assign the "mu" truth value, then you've definitely answered it, "mu".

[Mumeishi]

Not sure if this is helpful or not.

As far as I understand, 'mu', in the original Cha'an/Zen sense meant something like, 'the question is absurd' or 'I unask the question', hence it might be an appropriate (if dogmatic and thus probably unenlightened) answer to koans such as 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?' or 'who were you before your parents were conceived?'. Famously it was the answer given by one master to the question 'does a dog have Buddha nature?', but that's probably partly a joke since the Chinese 'Wu' is close to the sound a dog makes.

[phoenixthoth]

Since an entity can be said to contain many things, but never itself...I don't understand how you could work it so that an entity contained itself. A jar (fore example) may contain water or anything else you wish to put in it, but you could never put it inside itself, could you?
i know what you're dealing with with this perspective. i know it's hard to intellectualize an entity that is self-containing and whose all definitions are self-referential and seemingly useless. what we're talking about can't really be defined exactly except as perhaps the universal set. there are two analogies that aren't perfect that might help you imagine an entity that contains itself:
1. a set with nonstrict inclusion. a set is always a subset of itself though NOT a proper one. there are no sets i know of that are proper subsets of themselves.

2. the outer most atoms in the jar are containing, in a sense, what's within the inner layers.

2 is inherintly flawed as an analogy because it's a finite object. we're talking about an infinite object here (even if it's just a bunch of empty space out there) and just how the rules of the macroscopic don't at all apply to the realm of quantum mechanics, the finite intuition on objects not being able to contain themselves doesn't apply to infinite entities. does that help you understand? it's not really something i can prove to you. and no one can, i don't think. i don't think anyone can prove this entity whose name does NOT matter (the universe, the universal mind, the universal set, God, etc) contains itself. the words are either going to be helpful or a stumbling block towards understanding. go and talk on the news about the universal set and they'd laugh me off the set (pun intended) with russell's paradox which 3 valued, east/west logic dissolves and answers the imponderable "does God exist?" it's just like all the other koans because you cannot prove either answer. and i'm sorry that we can't prove it to you, we really are. we wish we could. we try.

my conjecture is that that the answer is mu expresses the fact that free will has been built into "it": you are free to choose your own beliefs.


T means that the proposition is true...that it should be held as correct until disproven. False means that it is not T. What can "mu" mean? If "mu" doesn't mean T, then it means that "T is not the case" (right?) and must thus be equal to F, according to my definitions thereof.

simple. as you said, false means not T. well, mu means not T and not F. you can have a mu2 if you want, though i don't think you need it for russell, where mu2 is not T and not F and not mu. it doesn't just mean "T is not the case," it also means "F is not the case." all i'm requiring you to accept for proof, which is actually by definition not a proof because it uses mu, is the adoption of a possibility besides true and false. koans explain exactly why we need a third truth value and so do statements like "i always lie" and "jennifer love hewitt is beautiful," although i find that to be a weak example. actually, fuzzy logicians use infinitely many truth values modelled after the [0,1] interval where 0=F, 0.5=mu, and 1=T, though i'm fairly sure they're not using it to answer koans or solve (russell's) paradox; i've heard it useful for elevator and brake design.

in truth, there is only truth. there is no such thing as false. everything that isn't true is just true to a lesser extent, so to speak. i can't really formulate this correctly. i'm trying to get a transcendence of opposites here. like hot and cold. cold is really just absence of heat. same with true and false.


If something is undecidable then it is true "if and only if" some other proposition, isn't it?

perhaps some undecidable statements are equivalent to each other. in my investigation of the universal set, i found that the statement U equals the power set of U is equivalent to "russell's paradox is a nontautology."


But something that is assigned a truth value is answered definitively. If you assign the "mu" truth value, then you've definitely answered it, "mu".

i agree with that. i must have made a false statement ;) if it seemed otherwise. from that perspective, is anything undecidable? you're at least deciding it's undecidable. i love little logic circuits (aka paradoxes) like that. i think the word paradox means "language is inadequte."

we are all limbs on the same tree. that tree can have any name you want. some popular and less popular names are:
God
consciousness
all that is
christ consciouenss
the tree of life
the tree of knowledge
the blunt truth
the real truth
Truth
the universe
the multverse
Reality
objective reality
the universal set
the Self
the universal mind
the mind

different branches but all on the same tree. this is not a new idea at all. the name of this branch is phoenix. one tree. unity.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i know what you're dealing with with this perspective. i know it's hard to intellectualize an entity that is self-containing and whose all definitions are self-referential and seemingly useless. what we're talking about can't really be defined exactly except as perhaps the universal set. there are two analogies that aren't perfect that might help you imagine an entity that contains itself:
1. a set with nonstrict inclusion. a set is always a subset of itself though NOT a proper one. there are no sets i know of that are proper subsets of themselves.


A set is always a subset of itself? How so? If there is set S, and we say that all of the solipsists in the world belong to that set, the set of all solipsists cannot belong to S can it? IOW, S does not belong to (since I can't get the symbols to work [:((])S.


simple. as you said, false means not T. well, mu means not T and not F.


Illogical. If F=notT then notT=F, it is commutative. Therefore, mu cannot equal "notT" without becoming equal to F. Right?


in truth, there is only truth. there is no such thing as false. everything that isn't true is just true to a lesser extent, so to speak. i can't really formulate this correctly. i'm trying to get a transcendence of opposites here. like hot and cold. cold is really just absence of heat. same with true and false.


But sometimes there is a complete absence of truth, right? There can be an "absolute zero" of truth, can't there?


i agree with that. i must have made a false statement ;) if it seemed otherwise. from that perspective, is anything undecidable? you're at least deciding it's undecidable. i love little logic circuits (aka paradoxes) like that. i think the word paradox means "language is inadequte."


Yeah, I think paradoxes are really fun. You should read Raymond Smullyan's books. He's very big on paradoxes and coercive logic.


we are all limbs on the same tree. that tree can have any name you want. some popular and less popular names are:
God
consciousness
all that is
christ consciouenss
the tree of life
the tree of knowledge
the universe
the multverse
Reality
objective reality
the universal set
the Self
the universal mind
the mind

different branches but all on the same tree. this is not a new idea at all. the name of this branch is phoenix. one tree. unity.

I'm one of the last people you usually ever hear saying this, but that's pretty deep.

[Canute]

I'm not sure we're coming at Russell's paradox from the right direction. There is no problem with the set of all sets that contain themselves containing itself, as far as I know. After all the cosmos must qualify as such a set.

The paradox concerned the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.

Phoenixthoth

It's great to see someone struggling with the words. I think I know what you're trying to say and I sympathise (and agree). Unfortunately it isn't sayable, as everyone from Chuang Tsu onwards has said.

[phoenixthoth]

yes and consider the possibility that the problem is not with the axiom of a universal set but with the subsets axiom. you need both to arrive at the contradiction in 2 valued logic. perhaps the set S in russell's paradox is not a subset of U. perhaps it does not exist and so considering it as if it does is an error. now if it did exist, then it would automatically be a subset of U, but it doesn't.

in 3-valued logic, it can exist as a "fuzzy" subset of U.

the choice seems to be thus:
1. drop the axiom that there is a universal set.
2. modify the subsets axiom so that properties that lead to contradictions do not result in subsets.
3. adopt logic with at least 3 truth values and keep the subsets axiom as it is, including fuzzy subsets and the universal set.

to some binars, 2 may be the most appealing.
to the fuzzies, 3 is the most appealing.
to some binars, 1 is the most appealing.

words can only approximate the real truth but i feel that the approximation can be done arbitrarily well.

[phoenixthoth]

A set is always a subset of itself? How so? If there is set S, and we say that all of the solipsists in the world belong to that set, the set of all solipsists cannot belong to S can it? IOW, S does not belong to (since I can't get the symbols to work [:((])S.
i took "contain" to mean a subset of and you took it to mean is an element of. well, U is an element of U and a subset of U and i know of no other such sets with this property. remember that non-U intuition just can't apply to U. every set is a subset of itself while few sets in some sense are elements of themselves. for example, for no ordinal or cardinal are they elements of themselves and that covers a lot of ground right there. if i were to pick a new symbol for the cardinal number of U, i'd like just aleph or omega or alephomega for it is the beginning and the end. (my website alephnull kinda translates to AO.)



Illogical. If F=notT then notT=F, it is commutative. Therefore, mu cannot equal "notT" without becoming equal to F. Right?
ill-2-valued-logic, yes. binary logic and the law of excluded middle of t xor f does not apply. check out the other thread on multi-valued logic for more info on this. it's in the logic section of this site, i think. the same question was raised there. there is a modified version of xor which stipulates that one formula cannot have two different truth values simultaneously. however, the way to assign truth values is general so in a sense, using two different equally consistent systems of assigning truth values that i call perspectives, they can have two different truth values simultanously. from the perspective of binary logic, the excluded middle is maintained. intuitively speaking, "phoenix is beautiful" is true from one perspective and not true from another perspective.

all perspectives must be generalizations of binary logic or else it will be nonsense in my opinion.


But sometimes there is a complete absence of truth, right? There can be an "absolute zero" of truth, can't there?
see one of my posts in the other thread i mentioned. i argued that all logic is not just reducible to binary, it is reducible to unitary:
T
~T
~(T v ~T)
etc.,
so i metaphorically said that there is only white and degredations of white (like heat and absence of heat) and so absolute black, while it can be approximated arbitrarily well, can never be attained. this is only one perspective though. in another, strict binary logic, or in short, any finite list of the above degredations of truth except just the first one, does attain absolute black. notice though that absolute white is always there? It Is.


Yeah, I think paradoxes are really fun. You should read Raymond Smullyan's books. He's very big on paradoxes and coercive logic.
;)

a battle avoided cannot be lost
--sun tzu



I'm one of the last people you usually ever hear saying this, but that's pretty deep.
it's literally as deep as it gets. now that's not to say my ego is so big that i think i came up with something really deep. this is just a reflection of what i've realized while pondering the imponderables and reading about theism, buddhism, abrahamic religion, mathematics, psychology, and stuff like that. it's not at all new. organic posted the same thing about a tree a while ago and that's what inspired me to write it in that way.

a battle avoided cannot be lost. that's to say you must surrender in order to win. but you're only exchanging the lesser for the greater. what you're really surrendering is all delusions which are products of the ego. you're sublating the ego.

[Canute]

I can't follow all the set theory terminology I'm afraid, being a mathematical ignoramus.

I'm not very keen on the term 'fuzzy sets', since there is nothing at all fuzzy about them. You're talking about the 'middle way' of Buddhism and other non-dual epistemologies. Ultimately you're talking about exploring the reality beyond the illusion of duality. It's a well researched area of knowledge with an existing terminology and very clear cut concepts.

Have you explored non-dual ontology/epistemology? You may be re-inventing the wheel.

[phoenixthoth]

I am not reinventing or discovering anything. nor did I ever.

it is all a synthesis of what i've read and thought.

and yes, i've gone into the study of nonduality. recommended books are
power vs force
the eye of the I: from which nothing is hidden
I: Reality and subjectivity
the above are authored by david hawkins.

the article on be-ness by duerden at http://www.duerden.com

this article:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=18;t=193;st=0;&#entry561

the gnostic gospel of thomas:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=1;t=25;st=0;&#entry550

someone in the church didn't want you to read that and it was excluded from the bible. it takes all their power away completely yet it is perhaps the most essential part.

if you read these core works, i think that would be enough on their own to stimulate you in the right direction. reading the above would take under a month but understanding them may never happen.

[phoenixthoth]

check out max tegmark's view on the theory of everything:
http://www.physicsresource.com/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=1&cat=2&page=1

in it, he posits that mathematical existence is physical existence and that we are "self aware structures" that are mathematical in nature. (like the matrix??)

i conjecture that the universal set U is a self-aware structure. it would appear that if any sets posses self aware structure, then U must also. however, since i don't have a precise definition of what a self-aware structure is, i can't prove that. tegmark ended his paper with an open problem of finding an example of a self-aware structure and U must be an example, though the goal now would be to find the smallest such structures. i have no idea how small they are though i suspect that all sets posses at least a weak form of self awareness structure, even the empty one though it would be limited only to self awareness and not awareness of anything else. i suppose everything would have to be aware of all its contents and all sets with nonempty intersection with them. hmm... all sets have nonempty intersection with U, hence U is infinitely aware, aka omniscient.

from these observations, i postulate that if there is set containing my computer screen and if there is a set that contains me, they have a nonempty intersection because i am aware of my computer screen (which would also mean my computer screen is aware of me, at least weakly!).

please tell me i'm not suffering from a nash-type delusion!

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
And here I thought you was a Christian. Crowley is cetainly an interesting character. Do you find this philiosphy persuasive?

i haven't been a christian for 12 years now. i find his philosphies influential though i don't think he did the best job of explaining things though his solipsistic manefesto can help one realize that they are a part of God.

i am an agnostic-theist which means i believe what i cannot prove nor disprove. a delusion, perhaps?

let me expound a bit on my illusion theory. i think that thinking everything is an illusion is a helpful step towards reaching a state of unity but it is not quite correct. what's more accurate is that there are infinite degrees of consciousness and when the whole of consciousness is projected onto a lesser consciousness, part of the whole, one is not aware of the whole picture. what we see aren't quite illusions: they're icons/symbols. icons are real but a very incomplete part of the whole truth, which is the whole consciousness itself which is also as real. this consciousness has decided to interpret that projection as a computer screen that i'm looking at. but the real "action" is going on "upstairs."

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
I am not reinventing or discovering anything.nor did I ever.

If you say so. Still, seems to me you are.

and yes, i've gone into the study of nonduality.
It doesn't seem so from your links.

[phoenixthoth]

no, it doesn't seem that way, does it?

this was a recent event, the crossing over into nonduality. i had been in unity before and you can't really lose it or ever not be in it but you can believe you're not in it, as well as not be aware you're in it and not know what it's called, and beliefs can be powerful. i have believed i wasn't in it up until recently. a kind of absurd question is do i know i'm in it or do i think i'm in it? how do i know i even exist, if i want to ask such questions...

more about illusions: i think time might be an illusion that corresponds to the expansion of awareness of U which is static. growing yet not growing. revealing yet not revealing. does that make any sense? but perhaps expansion of awareness and any perception of change is a complete illusion. i doubt it though if a particle can have a dual wave- and -particle like structure, then perhaps U can have a dual static and dynamic structure.

it depends on your perspective, really.

on one hand, f(x)=x^2 is not constant. it's derivative is not identically zero which is our arbitrary definition of constant.

on the other hand, f={(0,0),(1,1),(2,4),...} is constant. there is no derivate concept for sets as far as i know.

dead and alive.

i'd like to ammend/change what i wrote about the philosophy of unity being "as deep as it gets." in fact, i think that if there is a rabbit hole in wonderland, then being in the state of unity is like finding the entrance to that rabbit hole. or like reaching the base of mt. olympus. the hole/mountain gets a lot deeper/taller after that. if we all live on a tree of knowledge, then i think it's infinite and there will never be a state of omniscience attained by a human in life. when i wrote "that's as deep as it gets," that suggests otherwise. that couldn't have been more in error.

[phoenixthoth]

back to the tree analogy that we're all connected somehow:
http://www.themessenger.info/MAR2002/WynnFree.html

by the way, the axiom of foundation can be used to prove that for no sets x is x an element of x.

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
check out max tegmark's view on the theory of everything:
http://www.physicsresource.com/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=1&cat=2&page=1

in it, he posits that mathematical existence is physical existence and that we are "self aware structures" that are mathematical in nature. (like the matrix??)

i conjecture that the universal set U is a self-aware structure. it would appear that if any sets posses self aware structure, then U must also. however, since i don't have a precise definition of what a self-aware structure is, i can't prove that. tegmark ended his paper with an open problem of finding an example of a self-aware structure and U must be an example, though the goal now would be to find the smallest such structures. i have no idea how small they are though i suspect that all sets posses at least a weak form of self awareness structure, even the empty one though it would be limited only to self awareness and not awareness of anything else. i suppose everything would have to be aware of all its contents and all sets with nonempty intersection with them. hmm... all sets have nonempty intersection with U, hence U is infinitely aware, aka omniscient.

from these observations, i postulate that if there is set containing my computer screen and if there is a set that contains me, they have a nonempty intersection because i am aware of my computer screen (which would also mean my computer screen is aware of me, at least weakly!).

please tell me i'm not suffering from a nash-type delusion! [/B]
I don't think you have delusions. I think you're bang on. I'd quibble about whether your computer is aware of you, prefering microphenomenalism to the idea of conscious thermostasts, and also over the bit about the empty set having self-awareness, since I think it is actually a pure non-dual experience, but they're small points.

[phoenixthoth]

i'd rather be wrong than delusional. thank you for suggesting that i'm right or wrong but not delusional.

does the empty set have SAS? hmm... indeed, how can a void have any structure, let alone SAS. i think there must be infinitely many levels of SAS and singletons could from a certain point of view have the most because there's so little to be aware of and the least because there's so little structure to be "complex" enough for SAS.

if a manifold has SAS, i conjecture that it's level of SAS is related to its dimension and if a set has SAS, to its cardinality.

i have virtually given up hope that the object {X is a set : X=X} is a set though i'm still trying. even if it's a proper class, i conjecture that it is somehow "aware" of all sets.

edit: max said that evidently no known structures have SAS. i think he says that because there is no evidence of selfawareness in any known structure. i disagree; i bet that lots of known structures have SAS, whatever that is. the big open problems are these: define SAS, prove it exists, give examples, give and prove the smallest example. my little pet conjecture is that the smallest SAS anything like human is roughly equivalent to the same amount of structure in a differentiable manifold or riemann surface of dimension under 10, like 5. but since i don't have a definition of SAS, i don't even know if any exist.

anyways, if math and physics and consciousness are all somehow connected, that would indeed by a theory of everything at least in a context where consciousness forms the basis of reality and i know that's probably a distortion of buddhism but i know many people believe/"know" that.

[Canute]

I agree with you that set theory is important in respect of explaining consciousness. Unfortumately I know almost nothing about it so can't follow you very well.

However I would argue that the empty set is not quite the right metaphor for fundamantal consciousness, although it's close. I'd also argue that the empty set cannot have SAS, since SAS requires self and non-self, awareness and object of awareness, and the empty set has insufficient parts to allow this. A Buddhist would say it is 'is-ness', the annihilation of self and therefore of self-awareness.

Another point about the empty set is that in set theory its existence is (I think) taken as axiomatic. To explain consciousness I suspect we have to do the same, and assume that the existence of consciousness is inevitable, axiomatic, and that 'nothingness' is impossible. That is, there is 'something that it is like' to be nothing.

It may be a scientifically uncomfortable idea, but as a theory it has considerable reach, since it nicely explains why anything exists.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Canute
However I would argue that the empty set is not quite the right metaphor for fundamantal consciousness, although it's close. I'd also argue that the empty set cannot have SAS, since SAS requires self and non-self, awareness and object of awareness, and the empty set has insufficient parts to allow this. A Buddhist would say it is 'is-ness', the annihilation of self and therefore of self-awareness.
perhaps then instead of the void being the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness is on the other end of the spectrum. i'm thinking maybe the proper class of all sets or the category of all categories. but in some sense, just binary logic is the biggest structure for it is the most general with the fewest constants and fewest axioms and all of math uses it. i'm working on a way to remove russell's paradox, going back to the subject of this thread and the main problem is that in ternary logic, the proof by contradiction is no longer valid but then again neither is modus ponens standard deduction. i think i found a way to get around this problem so that a universal set, a set of all sets, can exist in the context of ternary logic, a logic with a third truth value. this unviersal set U would be on the other end of the spectrum from Ø and perhaps it is the fundamental consciousness. even if U is not a set and my work proves to be invalid, U is still a proper class and does "exist" mathematically which, in max's theory, means it physically exists. one way or another, i suspect there is some uberstructure that contains all SAS's and whatever it is is the fundamental consciousness.

one may argue that it is "obvious" that we're not "living" in a set because a set is static yet we are dynamic. i have an analogy as to why sets have a dual dynamic and static nature but i think i shared it already. now i'm viewing that analogy as somewhat weak. all it does for me now is suggest that it's conceivable that sets can have a dual dynamic and static nature.


Another point about the empty set is that in set theory its existence is (I think) taken as axiomatic. To explain consciousness I suspect we have to do the same, and assume that the existence of consciousness is inevitable, axiomatic, and that 'nothingness' is impossible. That is, there is 'something that it is like' to be nothing.
you are correct, it is an axiom. the existence of the universal set would also be an axiom. mathematical existence means a structure exists if its existence is free from contradiction. i agree wholehartedly that nothingness is impossible. does it make sense to say that the thing that is empty is not nothingness? this is a subtle point. the thing that is empty sort of contains nothingness and it's not that the nothingness exists, its the thing that contains nothing that exists.

this doesn't have to do with "no mind" does it?

It may be a scientifically uncomfortable idea, but as a theory it has considerable reach, since it nicely explains why anything exists.
indeed (on both points).

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
[B]perhaps then instead of the void being the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness is on the other end of the spectrum. i'm thinking maybe the proper class of all sets or the category of all categories.
Absolutely. Thus emptiness/fullness and the two Brahman.

(Didn't get any of the next bit)

you are correct, it is an axiom. the existence of the universal set would also be an axiom. mathematical existence means a structure exists if its existence is free from contradiction. i agree wholehartedly that nothingness is impossible. does it make sense to say that the thing that is empty is not nothingness?
Yes, and no. As the set of all sets, (or the set of all empty sets), emptiness is actually its own container. There is no 'thing that is empty'. But I agree that emptiness is not nothingness in metaphysical/cosomlogical terms.

(If I descend into insanity before you do let me know).[:D]

this is a subtle point. the thing that is empty sort of contains nothingness and it's not that the nothingness exists, its the thing that contains nothing that exists.
That seems like the right way of thinking about it but the wrong thought. But this stuff is nearly impossible to talk about.

this doesn't have to do with "no mind" does it?
Everything imho.

Canute