Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

[SciWriter]

Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

We will be looking into this more, and showing, then exploring unity (no ‘one’).

Anyone?


So, no pure and single materialism notion can be true, including all entities of forever somethings or entities (same thing), such as electrons, quarks, fundamental substances, life, a being, or Life, and a Being, for these can be shown to be contradictory and/or absurd?

Well, that should interest someone, as well as the absurdity of a no-thing at all, or a pure ‘all is consciousness’, idealism, Platonism, and the like or that consciousness has no existence of its own at all, etc.

It might help to go through some of these, plus more metaphysical notions that are held. Anyone here who wants to show all, some, or most of the pure and single notions as being impossible and therefore false and absurd?

Anyone, on the other hand, want to show at least why the notions are gone for, so readily, and also possibly why one of them alone must be true for sure?

Would it mean anything if there were no possible distinctions possible, as a ‘one’, since all are absurd, kind of like a blend in unity (no ‘one’ way)? And how could we show that? This means as an overarching truth of why there is existence, not just liking something personally and going with it, sermonizing.

It’s only the most sought after understanding of all time, and the main purpose of some sites.

If we can but just localize or rule out some areas, that information will still be useful.

This is really a scientific TOE thread, and should still have philosophy, as that is where I placed it, but not that just alone, for scientific observation must bear it out, ultimately, but some pure philosophizing is still OK in the meanwhile as a suggestion for a direction, and of course necessary.

The first thrust, though, is on showing single metaphysical positions to be absurd. Sometimes, self-contradiction of the notion will be all that seem to available, for universal and magic negatives, but this is, too, a powerful tool.

Plus, concepts that cannot be shown in the least will not be of any value here, nor their opposite unconcepts that are then asked to be proved. We need information that can be worked with, not just sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish.

Yes, a readjustment, too, is necessary, toward the aims of inquiry here as in both actually discussing a subject with some engagement to it and how that is done such as to have a good discussion of it.

Even coming up with 'All is undecidable' or an 'Unknown causeless' instead of some neutral unity would be a big plus, as that would have a bearing, but we must work our way to it, not just say it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Plus, concepts that cannot be shown in the least will not be of any value here, nor their opposite unconcepts that are then asked to be proved. We need information that can be worked with, not just sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish.

Its sheer imagination of what ought to be as a hope and a wish if you think empiricism has the tools to monopolize philosophical discussion
:shrug:

 

[Big Chiller]

Concept of existence alone is not positive in my opinion because the concept non-existence is not the opposite/negative of the concept of existence in actuality.

 

[SciWriter]

Concept of existence alone is not positive in my opinion because the concept non-existence is not the opposite/negative of the concept of existence in actuality.

That, too, we will try to show, such as 'is' vs. 'is not' cannot be a distinction since there is no 'is' by itself as a solution as well as no 'is not'. Some may even have gotten to this temporary but not radical enough state, though another reduction, such as not considering time to be a diction, having that to be no distinction for Totality, as far as no past or future.

Summary of above:

Some might get mired in the notion of eternity as to past and future for Totality (the Absolute) and then derive their way out of it by having that Totality simply ‘is’, rather than ‘is not’, removing time, which is a fine direction, but is not radical enough, for there would be, as well, no distinction between ‘is’ and ‘is not’, for they are the same, as unity.

 

[SciWriter]

Its sheer imagination of what ought to be as a hope and a wish if you think empiricism has the tools to monopolize philosophical discussion
:shrug:

One can chance upon hopes and wishes of armchair analysis turning out to lead to their validation, such as Einstein's feeling that something, namely time, had to give, as being variable, yet he also built on what came before and there could be confirmation, too, of relativity.

The best philosophy will be one that corresponds to some observations, otherwise it just sits in thin air. Pending that outcome, if not possible, logic can be used that at least has some known components to it. Then comes sheer hopes and wishes with nothing behind them.

 

[lightgigantic]

One can chance upon hopes and wishes of armchair analysis turning out to lead to their validation,

and there's your problem.

Empiricism has a necessarily limited metonymic scope for validation ... if you don't believe me, tell me what a cup of flour is essentially composed of.
:shrug:

 

[SciWriter]

and there's your problem.

Empiricism has a necessarily limited metonymic scope for validation ... if you don't believe me, tell me what a cup of flour is essentially composed of.
:shrug:

There is no telling what a cup of flour is composed of directly since we don't interact with it directly. Our senses do, but 'we' are not aware at that level. What we get is an appearance, a re-presentation of it in the brain.

There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are not the actual reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no telling what a cup of flour is composed of directly since we don't interact with it directly. Our senses do, but 'we' are not aware at that level. What we get is an appearance, a re-presentation of it in the brain.

There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are not the actual reality.

framing tacit terms with more tacit terms still doesn't take the discussion outside the realm of tacit terms ... such is the absurdity of expecting explicit terms to arise from tacit terms I guess ...
:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

tell me what a cup of flour is essentially composed of.

This assumes the possibility of "essential composition", something which is neither necessary nor in evidence. So if I reject your premise then your conclusion is automatically invalid.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --



This assumes the possibility of "essential composition", something which is neither necessary nor in evidence. So if I reject your premise then your conclusion is automatically invalid.

It assumes you can tell me what composes a cup of flour without relying on tacit terms ... of course you can't explain it because the length and breadth of empiricism is tacit terms.

This doesn't automatically render empiricism lousy - it simply highlights the limitations of it (and the complete absurdity of the attitude represented by Sciwriter's OP)
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

This doesn't automatically render empiricism lousy - it simply highlights the limitations of it (and the complete absurdity of the attitude represented by Sciwriter's OP)

So, instead of empiricism, what are you suggesting as a viable alternative?

 

[Yazata]

Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

I don't know what "pure, single, positive bases of existence" means.

So, no pure and single materialism notion can be true, including all entities of forever somethings or entities (same thing), such as electrons, quarks, fundamental substances, life, a being, or Life, and a Being, for these can be shown to be contradictory and/or absurd?

Are you asking a question or making a statement? Must all materialists possess a "pure and single materialism notion"? In other words, are you addressing materialism in general, or just one particular variety of materialism?

(I'm something of a physicalist, so I'm wondering whether you're challenging my position.)

Well, that should interest someone, as well as the absurdity of a no-thing at all, or a pure ‘all is consciousness’, idealism, Platonism, and the like or that consciousness has no existence of its own at all, etc.

That's a pretty heterogeneous collection of philosophical ideas. I favor some of them but not others, I guess. I don't really think that any of them are totally absurd, though.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

We will be looking into this more, and showing, then exploring unity (no ‘one’).

Anyone?


So, no pure and single materialism notion can be true, including all entities of forever somethings or entities (same thing), such as electrons, quarks, fundamental substances, life, a being, or Life, and a Being, for these can be shown to be contradictory and/or absurd?

Well, that should interest someone, as well as the absurdity of a no-thing at all, or a pure ‘all is consciousness’, idealism, Platonism, and the like or that consciousness has no existence of its own at all, etc.

It might help to go through some of these, plus more metaphysical notions that are held. Anyone here who wants to show all, some, or most of the pure and single notions as being impossible and therefore false and absurd?

Anyone, on the other hand, want to show at least why the notions are gone for, so readily, and also possibly why one of them alone must be true for sure?

Would it mean anything if there were no possible distinctions possible, as a ‘one’, since all are absurd, kind of like a blend in unity (no ‘one’ way)? And how could we show that? This means as an overarching truth of why there is existence, not just liking something personally and going with it, sermonizing.

It’s only the most sought after understanding of all time, and the main purpose of some sites.

If we can but just localize or rule out some areas, that information will still be useful.

This is really a scientific TOE thread, and should still have philosophy, as that is where I placed it, but not that just alone, for scientific observation must bear it out, ultimately, but some pure philosophizing is still OK in the meanwhile as a suggestion for a direction, and of course necessary.

The first thrust, though, is on showing single metaphysical positions to be absurd. Sometimes, self-contradiction of the notion will be all that seem to available, for universal and magic negatives, but this is, too, a powerful tool.

Plus, concepts that cannot be shown in the least will not be of any value here, nor their opposite unconcepts that are then asked to be proved. We need information that can be worked with, not just sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish.

Yes, a readjustment, too, is necessary, toward the aims of inquiry here as in both actually discussing a subject with some engagement to it and how that is done such as to have a good discussion of it.

Even coming up with 'All is undecidable' or an 'Unknown causeless' instead of some neutral unity would be a big plus, as that would have a bearing, but we must work our way to it, not just say it.

'Unknown causeless' is not the right term. bWhat "cannot be known" is only evidence of a limit to our understanding of a phenomenon rather than the nonexistence of a cause for that phenomenon. To believe otherwise is analogous to suggesting that what we don't see, doesn't exist because it is beyond our spectrum of vision. When we close our eyes, does the world cease to exist because we can't see it? Does a cause not exist because it is not known or has not been determined?

 

[wynn]

'Unknown causeless' is not the right term.

It is the right term.

What "cannot be known" is only evidence of a limit to our understanding of a phenomenon rather than the nonexistence of a cause for that phenomenon.

"Unknown" and "unknowable" are two completely different qualifiers.

 

[wynn]

Anyone, on the other hand, want to show at least why the notions are gone for, so readily,

Are they really gone for, or are they merely presented and/or perceived as such?

and also possibly why one of them alone must be true for sure?

If there are lies, and if there is truth, then surely there must be one truth.

Would it mean anything if there were no possible distinctions possible, as a ‘one’, since all are absurd, kind of like a blend in unity (no ‘one’ way)?

It would. For one, it would go against the fact that people sometimes have the perception of variety.
In unity, how could we account for variety?

And how could we show that?

To whom?
If unity would be The Truth, there would be nothing to show, nothing to prove, and to nobody, as all would be one, no distincitons.

This means as an overarching truth of why there is existence, not just liking something personally and going with it, sermonizing.

It's possible to overestimate, but also to underestimate personal likes and dislikes.


What exactly is wrong with sermonizing? This is a serious question.

It’s only the most sought after understanding of all time, and the main purpose of some sites.

Sure.

If we can but just localize or rule out some areas, that information will still be useful.

Useful for what?

This is really a scientific TOE thread, and should still have philosophy, as that is where I placed it, but not that just alone, for scientific observation must bear it out, ultimately, but some pure philosophizing is still OK in the meanwhile as a suggestion for a direction, and of course necessary.

On the grounds of what do you, so singly, onely, posit this criterion above?

The first thrust, though, is on showing single metaphysical positions to be absurd.

How is your position not a single metaphysical position as well?

Plus, concepts that cannot be shown in the least will not be of any value here, nor their opposite unconcepts that are then asked to be proved. We need information that can be worked with, not just sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish.

How is your posting this thread anything but "sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish"?

 

[wynn]

One can chance upon hopes and wishes of armchair analysis turning out to lead to their validation, such as Einstein's feeling that something, namely time, had to give, as being variable, yet he also built on what came before and there could be confirmation, too, of relativity.

The best philosophy will be one that corresponds to some observations, otherwise it just sits in thin air. Pending that outcome, if not possible, logic can be used that at least has some known components to it. Then comes sheer hopes and wishes with nothing behind them.

With these analyses, what do you hope to find?
What aim are you trying to achieve?

World domination?
Relieving your own existential angst?
Humiliating your opponents?
Being able to sleep at night?

 

[Yazata]

'Unknown causeless' is not the right term. bWhat "cannot be known" is only evidence of a limit to our understanding of a phenomenon rather than the nonexistence of a cause for that phenomenon.

I agree. 'Unknown' certainly doesn't imply 'causeless'. There may well be some cause for whatever we are talking about, even if we don't know what the cause is.

That's not unusual, actually. We can even imagine there being any number of states of affairs that we don't know anything about, and perhaps can never know anything about, that might have equally unknown causes.

In other words, the scope of our knowledge is almost certainly vastly smaller than the scope of reality itself.

 

[Gustav]

indeed
promissory materialism's ace up the sleeve...the hidden variables

 

[SciWriter]

I don't know what "pure, single, positive bases of existence" means.

Such as fundamental substance, 'all is consciousness', a Being, ex nihilo, a matrix projector… any metaphysical basis promoted.

 

[SciWriter]

How is your posting this thread anything but "sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish"?

Philosophy takes hopes and wishes up a level, but to go the distance, a correspondence in observation is required.

Lacking observation is not good at all, and neither are just hopes and wishes alone, but if there is philosophy then people may use it, if that's all there is, to make the probabilistic estimates in their lives as to any metaphysical direction.