The issue of "exist" resolved

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:42 pm

So, I came to this forum with a very narrow view of "exist" and have, with the help of some of the users (and some on a philosophical forum), resolved my philosophy and physics. This may seem pedantic, tiring, or even trivial to some. However, it's vitally important. The inability to distinguish an existent from a non-existent or an entity from a non-entity is exactly what got science into such a pathetic state. Without further ado, here we are.

Concrete Entity: Shape and location
Abstract Entity: Shape
Existent: A concrete entity or a relationship among concrete entities

Existent is the more general category. It can be subdivided:

1) Independent Existent: A continuous, indivisible entity.
2) Concrete Dependent Existent: A collection of independent existents (entites) with one or more particular set(s) of spatial arrangements.
3) Abstract/Conceptual Dependent Existent: A collection of independent or concrete existents with two or more consecutive set(s) of spatial arrangements.

To saving typing/talking you can just shorten these to "independent, concrete dependent, abstract dependent".

Thus, tables and cows fall into category 2. Love, justice, and consciousness fall into category 3. It may be difficult to understand the difference between 2 and 3 at first glance. The important thing to realize is that 2 is a *static* relationship whereas 3 is *dynamic*, the keyword is "consecutive" implying time. For the sake of discussion lets assume that the atom is the fundamental constituent, the argument works whatever we call the fundamental constituent. For instance, you may refer to a particular collection of atoms as a tree. The atoms are not always in precisely the same location, but you can assign a set of locations for all the atoms such that you still identify it as a tree if all the atoms are at one of the locations you assigned it. Mathematically this could easily become outrageously complicated, but conceptually it is not hard. So if some bark gets scraped off and a few trillion of the atoms are carried to the Andromeda Galaxy you still identify the tree because you can decide that, as long as a certain minimum number of atoms remain at some minimum proximity, it is still a tree. If the tree is chopped in half you may not identify it as a tree anymore although the two pieces lie within inches of each other. Instead of a tiny fraction of the atoms being separated you're now dealing with half the atoms in the tree, which may be above your minimum number. No matter how complex, simple, lengthy, or concise your criteria, it is always static. You always look at all the atoms' location simultaneously and decide right then if it's still a tree.

On the other hand, category three is dynamic. Love is not simply a picture of specific atoms at specific locations whether they are in someone's brain or body or whatever. It takes more than a picture of two people at some proximity to understand love. There must be interaction, motion, etc. Love is not just a candlelit fancy restaurant with two people sitting at a table. It is one person talking to the other, looking at each other, thinking, planning, feeling, etc. Consciousness is the quintessential example. There is simply no single set of spatial locations of entities that results in consciousness. Consciousness involves consecutive locations, motion, interaction, etc. Justice is not simply a courtroom, it is an action or set of actions. It is a judge pronouncing sentence or a revolutionary fighting for the neglected common folk. Category three is the ubiquitous experience of everyday, our lives, our experiences.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:59 am

altonhare wrote:This may seem pedantic, tiring, or even trivial to some. However, it's vitally important. The inability to distinguish an existent from a non-existent or an entity from a non-entity is exactly what got science into such a pathetic state. Without further ado, here we are.

Concrete Entity: Shape and location
Abstract Entity: Shape
Existent: A concrete entity or a relationship among concrete entities

Existent is the more general category. It can be subdivided:

1) Independent Existent: A continuous, indivisible entity.
2) Concrete Dependent Existent: A collection of independent existents (entites) with one or more particular set(s) of spatial arrangements.
3) Abstract/Conceptual Dependent Existent: A collection of independent or concrete existents with two or more consecutive set(s) of spatial arrangements.

To saving typing/talking you can just shorten these to "independent, concrete dependent, abstract dependent".

Hello altonhare,

does a non-existant entity exist ? Is omission an action ?

Your attempt to define exist is valid within the framework of certain parameters. Parameters defined by logic, cultural programming and a few other forces that create a certain reality. Even if a reality is dominating and agreed on by most people doesnt mean it is the only possible reality. Some cultures and schools in time and space of our planet have/had frameworks so different that they could be extraterestial aliens as well.

The ancient vedic teachings are very different. Buddhas solution of the karma problem is even more weird. He offers nothingness and proposes to drop anything and move beyond it. The nothingness has no room for existance or non-existance and no room for definition even. This is not really philosophy, but the description of a special abstract layer.
The most important rule of the culture of mages and witches is "Knowledge is the roadblocker of magic". Sure, the culture of witches might seem weird or even a fake, still they are there.

The most extreme framework i have seen is the shamanic Nagual (not based on Castanedas descriptions). It basically renders everything our current western civilisation is "thinking" as invalid. There is not much to learn from books or on the net. This is because how the story works. But it cant be denied, because even the UN officially accepted shamanism and its official 15.000 years history. Which btw. blows any religion, science and philosophy out of the water ;) However, all i can post about it is a short text that describes a totally different framework.

The nagual is unstructured, the tonal is structured. The tonal organizes and structures the nagual. Knowingness is unstructured. We bring knowingness into the tonal which gives it structure and it becomes knowledge.

Having access to knowingness and having the capabililtiy of bringing knowingness into knowledge was the natural state of man. However it was lost. All we have left now in society is knowledge. Both knowingness and knowledge are necessary. The warrior strives to reconnect to that aspect of self that gives forth knowingness.

Knowingness only exists in the now. It cannot be stored, that is knowledge. Knowledge is second hand.

We are taught to go to knowledge for answers. This is the wrong flow. We must go to knowingess first and then bring it into knowledge.

We go to the unstructured essence of energy first, then bring it into structure for manifestation. This is the natural flow.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:07 am

Hi Mague,
Could you give the source for the Nagual quote please? I found it very interesting. It is the best description I have seen so far of what my mind does when I contemplate upon things. Especially this bit:
Knowingness only exists in the now. It cannot be stored, that is knowledge. Knowledge is second hand.

And this:
We must go to knowingess first and then bring it into knowledge.

It is also very similar to the Greek notion of amenesis - unforgetting.

I am somewhat familiar with the work of Don Miguel Ruiz and his Toltec teachings, and to a lesser degree, Theun Mares. I don't bother with Castenada.

Where is all the knowledge we lost with information? - T S Elliot
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Plasmatic » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:48 am

does a non-existant entity exist


Can a square circle exist? Once again all one has to do is grasp the axiom of Identity.

Your attempt to define exist is valid within the framework of certain parameters. Parameters defined by logic, cultural programming and a few other forces that create a certain reality. Even if a reality is dominating and agreed on by most people doesnt mean it is the only possible reality. Some cultures and schools in time and space of our planet have/had frameworks so different that they could be extraterestial aliens as well.


There is only ONE reality! Reality is the total of existence. The ONLY alternative is non-existence. [excluded middle]
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:00 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Mague,
Could you give the source for the Nagual quote please? I found it very interesting. It is the best description I have seen so far of what my mind does when I contemplate upon things. Especially this bit:


I am somewhat familiar with the work of Don Miguel Ruiz and his Toltec teachings, and to a lesser degree, Theun Mares. I don't bother with Castenada.

Where is all the knowledge we lost with information? - T S Elliot


Hello Grey Cloud,

i am sorry. It was a post on a blog without any real context. The problem with the topic is, that it only happens in the now. There is basically only oral teaching or teaching by interacting in the now. Usually you have to dig through a lot of BS in books and the net to find a grain of value.

Try to get some good books or texts about Akasah records. Otherwise i think you got the idea. Your T.S. Elliot quote tells the same. The akasha records are there and have an endless number of pages. You can read them if you want ;) One legend about tarot cards is that Thoth wanted to preserve all knowledge of man and therefor invented the cards. People love to play cards and make sure the cards will survive for a long time. The legend tells that the cards are loose pages. And however you combine them its a new book. I leave it to the mathematicans to calculate the number of permutations. If that was true, then old man Thoth made it to return knowledge back to knowingness and to leave a small buoy on the surface :)
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:13 am

Hi Mague,
Thanks for the reply. I'll not derail the thread any further but i'm with you on the Tarot etc.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:39 am

Well done Mague. Excellent integration of facts.
DMT would explain both what we could know and why we forget.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:00 am

does a non-existant entity exist ? Is omission an action ?
-Mague

Does 1 equal 2?

Is your head both your head and not your head?

Your attempt to define exist is valid within the framework of certain parameters. Parameters defined by logic, cultural programming and a few other forces that create a certain reality. Even if a reality is dominating and agreed on by most people doesnt mean it is the only possible reality. Some cultures and schools in time and space of our planet have/had frameworks so different that they could be extraterestial aliens as well.
-Mague

It is not valid because I say it is, it is valid because it can be used consistently. If you cannot use a key word consistently you have no business using it in a debate or discussion. So far I've not seen a single person on this forum tackle this issue. If someone else thinks they can define exist in a way that can be used consistently be my guest.

The ancient vedic teachings are very different. Buddhas solution of the karma problem is even more weird. He offers nothingness and proposes to drop anything and move beyond it. The nothingness has no room for existance or non-existance and no room for definition even. This is not really philosophy, but the description of a special abstract layer.
The most important rule of the culture of mages and witches is "Knowledge is the roadblocker of magic". Sure, the culture of witches might seem weird or even a fake, still they are there.
-Mague

What's karma? Why's it a problem? How can I offer nothingness? When someone hands me something without shape I'll listen to this line of thought. This paragraph is meaningless because it is self-contradictory and uses a bunch of vaguely defined or completely undefined terms.

But it cant be denied, because even the UN officially accepted shamanism and its official 15.000 years history. Which btw. blows any religion, science and philosophy out of the water ;) However, all i can post about it is a short text that describes a totally different framework.
-Mague

It can't be denied because some group of people "officially accepted it"? Someone's brainwashed on the sheep mentality. The quote you posted is, again, nonsensical. What's nagual, tonal, knowingness, knowledge, natural, and energy?

You and GC can have fun reading and analyzing myths, fables, and stories from various cultures. They can be interesting and stimulating. But to speak scientifically you will have to use your terms consistently. This is what it means to be scientific, consistency. Any claim that does not pass this very simple criteria is simply nonsense.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:00 pm

I thought of an additional quality to distinguish the three classes of existent while responding to some of GC's posts in other threads. The issue is whether an existent can be "created".

First, what does this word "create" mean? To some it means simply "to make something out of nothing". However this violates the axiom of identity. We must, then, define "create" merely as some kind of a change in the location of entities that already exist. Lets think about some simple examples of "creating" to help.

If I break a branch I can say "I created a stick". The stick and the branch are distinguished because they have different identities. The branch's identity involved direct attachment to the tree in addition to several chemical processes that depended on materials gathered by the roots. The stick's identity does not involve direct attachment to the tree or the same chemical processes as before (a new set of processes, associated with rot and such, would define the stick's identity). On the other hand, if I stack some rocks and walk away did I create a wall? Did I create a pile?

These two scenarios are fundamentally different because in the first case I identified the stick at the expense of the tree's identity. Certainly, the tree is not the same tree as it was before I identified the stick. As in the original post, I identify a class 2 existent by a specific set of spatial criteria of the constituents relative to each other. If breaking and separating one of its branches does not violate my spatial criteria I cannot identify the stick if I am consistent with my own criteria. I still must identify the totality of all the constituents as "tree". Alternatively I can decide to change my criteria for what I identify as "tree". In the second case I identified the wall/pile by virtue of the sum of individual identities. So, we have two scenarios for creation: creating an entity with an identity at the expense of one or more other entities' identity(ies) or creating an entity with an identity by the sum of two or more other entities' identities.

Expense Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (which compose entity A) followed by the identification of an entity (B) only by altering the spatial criteria for identification of entity A.

So if I peel some paint off my car and identify what I pull off as a "flake" I have identified it at the expense of altering some spatial criteria for the car. For instance, before one of my criteria for identifying the car may have been that no more than .1% of the constituents of the paint were placed at a distance of no more than 1 micrometer from X many constituents of the car. Since I have violated that criteria I no longer identify it as car. I must reformulate my criteria of identification of the car to not include the paint that has been peeled off at all. When I do, I identify the flake with some criteria.

This all sounds terribly complicated and I no nobody is ever going to identify their car or other things in this much detail. In reality you will simply look at an object and decide it's identity. But you must realize that, at some level, what I have described is what is going on. Your brain must use some set of criteria. It is important to get these kinds of details down and to understand the principles solidly before going on to more complex topics and discussions.

Sum Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (that are not entity A) followed by the identification of an entity (A) as a relationship among the entities moved in addition to any other entities.

So I identify a bunch of individual blocks. I move them closer to another bunch of blocks. Then I identify "pile" as some set of spatial criteria of each block relative to the other. This one's a lot cleaner/easier to understand.

Note that simply moving blocks does not create a "wall". The "wall" is a class 2 existent, a dependent existent. If you do not identify a set of spatial criteria for the wall then you cannot say that you created a wall, obviously, because you do not perceive it as such. If someone else sees you move the blocks and identifies the collection of blocks as "wall" then they may say "He created that wall". The wall's existence is contingent upon the conscious mind to identify it as such. Be careful about arguing this point. The blocks still exist because man A already identified them and they are at whatever location they are. I'm not claiming the blocks themselves "cease to exist" simply because man A didn't identify them as a wall. If no man had ever identified the blocks there indeed would be no "block" either because such a thing depends on the conscious mind to identify it as such. There are still constituents of the block that exist independent of conscious identification (class 1 existents, continuous entities).

Therefore, only class 2 existents (dependent concretes) can be "created" by definition. Class 3 existents cannot because they are concepts, not objects. This is a matter of internal consistency (verbs may only proceed concrete nouns, standard English) and avoiding absurdity (we can only imagine concrete nouns performing actions, i.e. people walk, chairs fall, but justice doesn't punish and love doesn't jump). Class 1 existents cannot be "created" because they are continuous entities (not made of smaller entities) and the only way to "create" such a thing is for it to appear out of nothing. This avoids violating the axiom of identity, which is why I expressly left it out of my definition in the first place.

Summary: Class 1 and 3 existents cannot be created. Only class 2 existents can be created by definition and to maintain internal consistency (within the framework I have arranged).
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:59 am

Plasmatic wrote:There is only ONE reality! Reality is the total of existence. The ONLY alternative is non-existence.


altonhare wrote:
You and GC can have fun reading and analyzing myths, fables, and stories from various cultures. They can be interesting and stimulating. But to speak scientifically you will have to use your terms consistently. This is what it means to be scientific, consistency. Any claim that does not pass this very simple criteria is simply nonsense.


I really didnt wanted to argue with you both. My intention was to hint to the framework. It doesnt matter if you belive in hinduism, buddhism, shamanism or voodoo. Fact is that a lot of people do and that those people live in a more or less different framework. Within a certain framework altonhare's definition of exits is valid and useful.

I am more then aware what is happening. Different frameworks sometimes are 100% contrary and tend to produce conflict in mind and emotion. I do know intelligent people who say that if they can thing of something, then it exists somewhere in the universe. Those people are scared and annoyed by sharp definitions like altonhare defines. And i know that altonhare and Plasmatic think and feel the same. I know the self-defence mechanics of the mind. Humans dont have an ego, only the logic intellect and he is a weak crook. Whenever something questions his integrity he starts to create signals of hate, fear or insanity. He wants to maintain 100% integrity and doesnt allow the nagual to penetrate it.

I do know that as a wanderer between the worlds. This is my personal curse and gift. I have been to Lakota sweat-lodge rituals and on dream quests, did buddhist meditations and i love Pythagoras and logic at the same time. I have seen spirits inside a dark lodge, had transcendence in meditation and i do need a lot of logic to do my job in the IT.
It is about frameworks. There is a frame around the single reality and endless reality frames. On that higher level the definition of exist (first post) needs an addition.

4) 1, 2 and 3 are valid unless an exeption occures. The exeption may have the quality of a miracle or a disaster.
The conclusion is that there are forces stronger then the forces that define our reality of physical laws, logic and mathematics. Any formula and knowledge is true unless an exeption occures. Therefor we have to add the x% chance of exeption to any given knowledge and formula. If we name the exeption EX, then its (1+1)*EX ~= 2.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby soulsurvivor » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:35 am

The process of creation depends entirely on seeing, knowing, and understanding everything available with which to "create". It's only nonsense when you're still in the "dark" about what really is existant. It becomes easier to say it's all "nonsense" rather than to admit you don't have a clue about existence.

Take "love" for example. It can become a "positive" or a "negative" force, or hey, even a neutral state, depending on how it's experienced. Capable of creation? Without a doubt, it is that type of non-concrete force that's responsible for all that exists, all that's created.

Love is the single most powerful force in this universe. That love has to be given to inner self is the first law of creation.
soulsurvivor
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: KY

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Plasmatic » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:20 am

I really didnt wanted to argue with you both


Im not arguing,Im disagreeing.

Within a certain framework altonhare's definition of exits is valid and useful... Different frameworks sometimes are 100% contrary and tend to produce conflict in mind and emotion



True but disagreement is not disrespect,and there can only be ONE correct framework that reflects the ONE reality.


I do know intelligent people who say that if they can thing of something, then it exists somewhere in the universe. Those people are scared and annoyed by sharp definitions like altonhare defines. And i know that altonhare and Plasmatic think and feel the same.


Fear is not the emotion evoked in me whatsoever.


I know the self-defence mechanics of the mind. Humans dont have an ego, only the logic intellect and he is a weak crook. Whenever something questions his integrity he starts to create signals of hate, fear or insanity. He wants to maintain 100% integrity and doesnt allow the nagual to penetrate it.


Having studied Jungian phsychology[similar to your comments] extensively ,an ex minister ,ex dualist etc,an ex gematria ,student etc.I know what your proposing . In those terms Ive wrestled quite a bit with my "shadow" and understand the Ego -self axis much better than he did because of his clouded mind. The process of individuation as Jung called is actually quite similar to my current view of the physcho-epistemological process.

You see Im an ex "choir" member. ;) I dont reject all the concepts I do because of insecurity ,but because I really do understand them. I could give you and JL half of my old library and you would be ecstatic at the content. I could share my past experiences with you and the interpretation I had then and youd get all goosebumbed and teary eyed. You can think its out of ignorance if you like .


It is about frameworks. There is a frame around the single reality and endless reality frames. On that higher level the definition of exist (first post) needs an addition.

4) 1, 2 and 3 are valid unless an exeption occures. The exeption may have the quality of a miracle or a disaster.
The conclusion is that there are forces stronger then the forces that define our reality of physical laws, logic and mathematics. Any formula and knowledge is true unless an exeption occures. Therefor we have to add the x% chance of exeption to any given knowledge and formula. If we name the exeption EX, then its (1+1)*EX ~= 2.




Miracles are concept that require acausality. This is an invalid concept. Disasters are a part of reality and follow all rules of causality/identity. There is NO exceptions to identity and causality. I welcome you to show me something that is not objective, i.e. is not what it is.


JL

I accept no unearned love. As love for me is a response to my highest values in another.Emotions ar effects of the values held both conscious and unconscious. The inversion of this is the cause of the mental turmoil in most folks.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:53 am

My intention was to hint to the framework. It doesnt matter if you belive in hinduism, buddhism, shamanism or voodoo. Fact is that a lot of people do and that those people live in a more or less different framework. Within a certain framework altonhare's definition of exits is valid and useful.
- Mague

I understand cultural relativism. I've mentioned before that I don't care what system/framework you use, as long as it's internally consistent (you don't blatantly contradict yourself). This is all I ask. To ask less of others would render communication meaningless. To ask less of myself would render thinking meaningless.

I've repeated on this forum a few times, if anyone wants to posit there own self-consistent framework I will follow it for the purposes of discussion with that person. My experience with communication is that people do not take this kind of care. As a result they read someone else's words but, instead of learning something new, they simply think of what THEY would be thinking if THEY were using those words. Nobody actually learns anything new (something that wasn't already in their head). Everyone stays stuck in their own head, although they have the illusion of communication because they unknowingly think/say the same things in many many different ways

I am more then aware what is happening. Different frameworks sometimes are 100% contrary and tend to produce conflict in mind and emotion.
- Mague

And so this begs the question, how will we decide which frameworks to accept and which to reject? My only criteria is internal consistency (non self-contradiction). Would you accept any framework Mague?

I do know intelligent people who say that if they can thing of something, then it exists somewhere in the universe.
-Mague

Well, first we must know what they mean by "think of something", "exist", and "universe". I have no problem with the statement if they can make clear what these words actually mean. If they cannot make clear what they mean then what they say is just a bunch of motions of air. They can refuse to define them if they want and delude themselves into the belief that any actual thinking is taking place. To ask less of yourself is to render thinking meaningless.

He wants to maintain 100% integrity and doesnt allow the nagual to penetrate it.
-Mague

100% integrity is a bad thing? Is that the difference between us Mague, you don't care about integrity?

1, 2 and 3 are valid unless an exeption occures. The exeption may have the quality of a miracle or a disaster.
The conclusion is that there are forces stronger then the forces that define our reality of physical laws, logic and mathematics. Any formula and knowledge is true unless an exeption occures. Therefor we have to add the x% chance of exeption to any given knowledge and formula. If we name the exeption EX, then its (1+1)*EX ~= 2.
-Mague

I have not argued that my framework is absolute. I merely argue that it is internally consistent. An absolute, correct, 100% "real" framework must also be internally consistent or it would violate identity. The day I see something that is not what it is I will give up on science and go work at CERN.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:57 am

Plasmatic wrote:Miracles are concept that require acausality. This is an invalid concept. Disasters are a part of reality and follow all rules of causality/identity. There is NO exceptions to identity and causality. I welcome you to show me something that is not objective, i.e. is not what it is.


Plasmatic,

the word "mircale" exists. But lets name the event exception.

It is not about valid and invalid. It is about locking out the exception from thoughts, equations and theories.

A cat is a cat, is a cat, is a cat, is a cat. It always looks like a cat and purrs like a cat. The rule is that a certain species is a cat. Period. This is wrong in another framework. In a different framework a cat is a cat but sometimes on rare occasions its a spirit.

It is not about showing something that is not what it is. Its not about prooving something. It is about having an "open slot" for exceptions in anything we do or think. Our tongue has receptors for sweet, sour, bitter, soft and crunchy. If you lock out the receptors for sour you wont taste sour. This is possible by meditation/selfprogramming or hypnosis. What i try to say is, that our existence has a "receptor" for exceptions. The exception plays a huge role, even in mathematics and science.

Science and engineering deals with exeptions every day. But they look at them as errors/bugs/missconceptions. They do not investigate the exception itself. Else we all would be aware that the nature of the exeption is potential on a universal scale or even beyond. Any exception has "endless" potential. This includes miracles and negation of any rule or reality.

Nothing is 100%, never. Logic does not allow to drop options. If we drop an option for the sake of conveniance then we play the game risc vs. chances. Playing is not logic, just conveniant or faster rewarding.

Logic cant understand the square root of 2. Meditation is based on inhale-exhale. What is between them ? Those are exceptions within the brain logic and the brain usually fights them. But the pure and true logic cant do anthing but accept the gap. If logic does accept it, it will find that the gap is the connection to consciousness and novelty. If it doesnt accept it, then its forming the illusion of a closed system and will slowly "die" from entrophy.

So yes, the all-spanning framework has gaps. It has contraditions. Those gaps are the points where we loose idendity and become part of something bigger.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:32 am

altonhare, please read my answer to Plasmatic. The following is in context to my previous post.

altonhare wrote:100% integrity is a bad thing? Is that the difference between us Mague, you don't care about integrity?


Yes/no. I cared a lot about integrity. Over the years i had my personal exceptions and they teached/influenced me. The longer i watched it, the more sense it made to me. Going through a crisis or two my brain finally dropped the control and consciousness took over eventually. I still care pedantic for integrity in smaller frameworks like job. But i am always aware that this framework is only a part of my life. Outside of that i drop integrity. Doing a dream quest leaves no room for such. The current economic and cultural structures force me to switch forth and back every day. But i am aware that i dont have to care for integrity, the natural flow of "stuff" does it much better then me. Nature is the perfect gardener and the universe the best availabe mastermind. But thats me, a wanderer between the worlds and i ll keep on traveling until i can finally retire soonish ;)

altonhare wrote: An absolute, correct, 100% "real" framework must also be internally consistent or it would violate identity. The day I see something that is not what it is I will give up on science and go work at CERN.


As in my post to Plasmatic. There is no 100%. There is the potential that you will work at CERN. No matter how low the chances are, you cant drop the option if you are true to your Logos. If you are not married you might find your soulmate there or sabotage the whole crap fro us or both :P The small gap in the frame is the connection to "godly/universal" novelty.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron