Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
The balance you talk about is achieved after both extremes are experienced. That balance, I guess, is somehow like that "residual understanding" I wrote of. One experiences Certainty (in the form of scientific and/or religious and/or whatever belief) then one experiences Uncertainty and then comes the residual understanding, or as you call it "the balance."
No, this isn't anything like what I was saying at all. I was saying that "uncertainty" is a balance, and you can't reach "uncertainty" (which means "partial uncertainty", btw) if you use the premise of "Uncertainty" at any time.
If you're in balance then you won't be sure that you're absolutely right but you also won't be sure that you're wrong. You have a good amount of hope in that that your thoughts may work as you wish and choose and think on the basis of that hope. Am I correct here? If yes, then I think you already have experienced with Uncertainty and Certainty.
You act like these are the only two choices. There is also the choice of "uncertainty", which is the one I've been pushing.
I never said it's "better." I said it's a "fairer" substitute. And again "you" interpret the "fairness" I talk about as "practicality." I don't put any value on Uncertainty for it's worthless but it's "fair" and "sincere" to that which is called Philosophy.
How can you say that it's both worthless and fair at the same time.
We can discuss the thing in some framework and get results for that framework and we can be satisfied with those results in their respective framework. However, there's no warranty, even limited, for outside of that framework. And clearly there's much more to outside than to inside.
There is no point in leaving a logical framework that works.
Seriously, do you have some grounds for that claim? If yes, do you know that if your grounds are creditable you would have overcome one of the most compelling challenges humanity has faced?
Honestly, have you ignored all of my posts in the past couple of pages?! Let me spell it out for you: Uncertainty is unusable because it requires you to accept a premise, while at the same time telling you not to accept any premises. This leaves you with no place to go, and thus you can't get anywhere. For a more detailed explanation of it's ineptitude, read my previous posts.
No, the rule is "there's no distinction between any two places, put them wherever and they'll be equal." Things are "put into place" but all into "one place" and that's the "place of equality."
I can't prove what I haven't even claimed. I never claimed that Uncertainty is useful; I said it shouldn't be assessed by practicality criterion. I never claimed its existence, I said it's paradoxical and can't be given a definite state.
In referring to "it", you claim "it's" existence, and you know it. You've been speaking about "it" as a reasoning system, and thus (obviously) implying it's existence.
Why? And how? "Nothing is uncertain" doesn't seem to me like opposing "any" order. It surely opposes "many" orders but not "any" order. I wrote of an order that is well suited to this premise, the order that places everything in one place, the place of equality.
Yes, it makes them all equally unreliable, and unimportant, if taken as a premise. It opposes all order, because to assume an order is to violate it's premise of not assuming anything.
Again, this is "your" interpretation (or rather "misinterpretation"). Uncertainty asks for caution, clarity and hesitation in the face of anything and everything; not a bit less, not a bit more.
DEAD wrong, even by your own previous explanations of Uncertainty. In case you've forgotten, Uncertainty relies on the premise that "nothing is certain". This means that to believe in "caution" is against it's very premise. To believe in "clarity and hesitation" is against it's very premise.
Uncertainty is of paradoxical nature that means it's nothing more than a between-the-lines hint. One may choose one's premises at will while one's uncertain of their truth.
No, that's how "uncertainty" works, not "Uncertainty".
Uncertainty provides a ground for always being cautious of what one chooses but doesn't prevent a choice from being made.
YES IT DOES!
If you make a choice of premise to take for granted, you have violated the premise of Uncertainty, which doesn't allow you to take anything for granted (at least, that's how you've presented it).
Being cautious of one's choice one will always be ready to change it if one finds out that choice has been erroneous. This readiness is a basis for a dynamic system of thoughts that can change with new packets of knowledge (even though uncertain they are). Instead of taking "progression" as a premise (like with Science) one will be experiencing "change" as a consequence of a fairer, more general, less demanding and more open premise.
Don't you see that all through this you are speaking of the ability to take a certain premise for granted when you choose to. Uncertainty doesn't allow one to take anything for granted.
Practicality does have meaning in many knowledge bodies but doesn't have the same meaning all over these places. Practicality can be defined even for a Religion, as "conformance to God's commandments" for example. This practicality is apparently different from the other one discussed in words of Science.
It doesn't matter, it still exists in all reasoning systems.
Causality bond is explained for scientifically through the declaration of forces. The four forces are the source of all interaction including that you smack someone. Forces are elements from the scientific Universe. They're of fundamentals of Science. Let's think of them for a moment. What's a force? An obscure concept that explains for a coincidence that is later called an "interaction."
Or, it is that which causes the interaction. Haven't you considered that yours is a viewpoint based solely on non-conformance to other viewpoints, while Causality is explaining what is happening without postulating any extra speculations?
How do you know they're hurt when you smack them? You see them getting hurt but do you see them? You see a consistent representation in your mind that goes through a transition but what's the nature of this representation? No one knows and is that what "really" (supposing there's some "real" thing around) happening? No one knows.
I'm definitely not going to get into a discussion of whether there is a reality or not. I 1) don't have time right now; and 2) don't see it's relevance, because you are assuming your own reality/existence every time you argue with me anyway. What's to make you think that I'm actually seeing what you type? It doesn't matter, because that's not the topic of our discussions.
Pre-established Harmony explains these coincidences as parts of the Harmony that governs the events of this Universe. The coincidence of two events is a part of the Harmony but not a necessity of Universe's structure which is supposed to be made of abstract Monads that are isolated from each other. While one part of the Harmony may force a coincidence and a seemingly relation between some of the Monads (of the two coinciding phenomena), a repetition is noway guaranteed. Monads are totally isolated and play their own roles in the Harmony but these roles may or may not be synchronized to mimic some relation.
So the "mimicing" of relation isn't caused by the "Monadic" (is that a word?
