|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 11, 2022 23:36:04 GMT
If everything is determined and the contradictory stance of both sides of the argument being presented (ie determinism vs. free will) are in fact determined then determinism results in contradiction and anything goes including the existence of free will.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 19, 2022 9:49:31 GMT
I can't say I know the answer, but in my life I tried to tie this up with God's will and a will of a man. I describe such an example: 1) a person goes home 2) his destination (of his home) is known 3) and it is known that he surely comes to home 4) but there are several roads in his way 5) which one will be chosen - is not known And for me it is true that God knows where that man will be (he will be at home), but God doesn't know which road is chosen. So, God both knows and doesn't know about it, therefore, there is free will, and there is determination. I know this illustration has got some flaws, but this is my way to explay (for myself) this puzzle.
Some might suggest that the flaw is that God cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful and at the same time give us free will.
But to be truly all-powerful and all-knowing, he must also have the power to hide knowledge from himself.
This is why God manifests as man - to see it from the non-Godly perspective.
I agree that this is possible for us to be able to view only a part of what God is, but I don't think that for God it is a problem that He can hide something for Himself being almighty. There is a key point: if He almighty He can do it. But this isn't necesary, I mean in this point I tried to desribe this is not absolutely necessary for God to know for instance from 0.999999... to 0.00000...01, because if He is aware of 1 and 0, and He does know that it cannot be that 0.5, so He doesn't need to know whether or not 0.7 was chosen or 0.3. Like in this case: I have to eat a hamburger, and I know it has 2,000 kalories. But if went to a burger-shock I don't need to know which exactly hamburger I take A or B, or C, because only what I care is that a hamburger looks like a habmurger, it tastes as hamburger, it smells like a hamburger, and it was done using natural components, (and of course it's not spoiled, etc). But thre are some spare and unnecesary knowledge as how long was it cocked 1,3 minutes or 1.7 minutes, or was it cocked in the morning, or in the evening... Even for us there are too many spare and unusual knowledge, so does for God. This is my opinion, but I might be wrong, of course.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 19, 2022 22:28:57 GMT
Just because something contradicts does not mean they do not exist. 2+2=5 is a contradiction but 2,+,=,5 still exist. The contradiction necessitates the opposing phenomenon as existing simultaneously through opposition. In these respects a paradox results as both phenomena share the same nature of "opposition" thus do not oppose each other; this is the contradiction of contradiction so even while everything self-negates into contradiction there is a self-negation of this self-negation. Contradictions cannot exist in the physical world. They can exist only in the psychological realm. When that mind-map tries to be applied to the physical world, the truth will become apparent.
A paradox is not a contradiction, but instead it is a weakness of language that makes opposition sound like contradiction.
If you add 2 real apples to 2 other real apples you
will always get 4 real apples.
The poor book-keeper or swindler will end up hungry if he does not realize this.
I can add 2 pools of water to 2 pools of water, and they might splash and form 5 pools of water.
This is a paradox because the idea of what constitutes a pool of water is a vague aspect of the language. It has no set definition.
The number of water molecules will always add up.
1. Thoughts are inherently connected to matter through the brain. The brain as physical manifests the thought, as brain activity, being physical as well. Contradictions are the emergence of matter into forms which individuate or rather manifest distinctness. Thought is physical, contradictions are thought, thus contradictions are physical. 2. From another perspective we see contradictions in the physical world, we see this in water and fire oppose each other. Even a simple blade of grass in the field and a horse shows contrast between identities. 3. As to the paradox, it is a unified contradiction but a form of contradiction nonetheless. 4. As to 2+2=4 that is an interpretation, adding 2 apples to 2 apples can easily be interpreted as 5 apples (the 4 individual apples and the 5th apple as the single set where the phenomenon exists as repeated but as repeated is still 1). 5. Definition is the manifestation of individuals, it is the division of reality into parts. Given there is no set axiom for what or how to divide phenomena there is no set definition for not only what constitutes definition but also for that which is defined. I can define water as H2O or H2Ox or H20xy etc. A definition is simply the application of boundaries but there is no rule, as said before, in how or what these boundaries are applied. 6. But to my main point contradictions do exist in the physical world as x is not y and y is not x, because y=/=x there is opposition in identity because of their distinctions. Distinctions are contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 19, 2022 22:35:15 GMT
If one "can use words whichever he likes" then it necessitates meaning for all words even if said meaning is subjective. You said 'it necessitates meaning for all words...' by which law? If you can use words whichever you like no laws upon you, so there cannot be no necessitaties. 1. The meaning of word is directed to how you like it; meaning is what is "liked". 2. "No necessities" is a negative law which means words can be directed to anything thus even subjectively created words have meaning. 3. Use is meaning thus all words have meanings. Even the made up word salskdjfas means salskdjfas; this self referencing points to itself thus resulting in an indefinite word but even with this indefiniteness it still means itself, salskdjfas points to the experience of manifesting salskdjfas. Dually the symbols mean the pronunciation and the pronunciation means the symbols thus resulting in a meta-meaning. It is exists it points.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 20, 2022 5:10:09 GMT
You said 'it necessitates meaning for all words...' by which law? If you can use words whichever you like no laws upon you, so there cannot be no necessitaties. 1. The meaning of word is directed to how you like it; meaning is what is "liked". 2. "No necessities" is a negative law which means words can be directed to anything thus even subjectively created words have meaning. 3. Use is meaning thus all words have meanings. Even the made up word salskdjfas means salskdjfas; this self referencing points to itself thus resulting in an indefinite word but even with this indefiniteness it still means itself, salskdjfas points to the experience of manifesting salskdjfas. Dually the symbols mean the pronunciation and the pronunciation means the symbols thus resulting in a meta-meaning. It is exists it points. I agree on 1. The 2nd is not quite the same what I said. Yes, the necessity can be taken as you propose, but in case of mine the necessity is a modal logic operator and it means "it is not impossible" or "this can be or this cannot be". Since "this can be or this cannot be" logically the same as "p v ~p", and it leads to the third logic law, then "p v ~p" is true. So, "no necessary" takes out any talks of any kinds of modality. You can just remove this word easily from the phrase. Just let me explain it once again: "no necessary" might be taken as something else, while in my case it's a logical operator. I could use words whichever I like. 3. Well, I wouldn't agree that a word "anonimoys" has meaning of "anonimoys". Oh, no. It's not necessary. I can use a word like "xxx" referring it to "3" or to "6", but there's no necessity "xxx" = "3" or "6", or "xxx". Only truth lasts, everything else is broken. This last remark is the same as logical law of inference: Semantically: "A→B" is true if A is false, or B is true. (The law of correlation) Logically: "A→B" is true if and only if it is impossible that A is true and B is false (The law of inference).
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 20, 2022 7:49:08 GMT
Contradictions cannot exist in the physical world. They can exist only in the psychological realm. When that mind-map tries to be applied to the physical world, the truth will become apparent.
A paradox is not a contradiction, but instead it is a weakness of language that makes opposition sound like contradiction.
If you add 2 real apples to 2 other real apples you
will always get 4 real apples.
The poor book-keeper or swindler will end up hungry if he does not realize this.
I can add 2 pools of water to 2 pools of water, and they might splash and form 5 pools of water.
This is a paradox because the idea of what constitutes a pool of water is a vague aspect of the language. It has no set definition.
The number of water molecules will always add up.
1. Thoughts are inherently connected to matter through the brain. 6. But to my main point contradictions do exist in the physical world as x is not y and y is not x, because y=/=x there is opposition in identity because of their distinctions. Distinctions are contradictions.
1.) Read Rupert Sheldrake - "The science delusion" - and you will see that the idea of the brain being the seat of awareness is just contemporary belief that has no substantial grounding - little different from other eras where it was considered to be the heart. Sheldrake locates the psycho-physical connection as being the spine. And he also claims that the brain is merely used for cooling the blood. He cites numerous cases of people that had little more than cerebral fluid inside their skulls, but functioned normally. There is also the classic case of Phineas Gage whose accident proved that the frontal lobes are not necessary. There are numerous other counter-claims to the popular brain theory, not the least being the meditations of Rene Descartes who founded the scientific method.
But for me, the clearest example is the absolute failure of 'neuroscience' in being unable to predict nor cure all the classic types of mental illness, which are more prevalent in the world today than at any time in recorded history. "Brain-science" is little more than astrology, as is so much of contemporary medicine.
6.) This is a semantic point you make, not one of ontology. You lose semantic traction by saying that, for example "light contradicts darkness". That is just poor use of language because the correct use would be to say "It is a contradiction to claim that light is equal to darkness".
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 23, 2022 6:06:28 GMT
1. Thoughts are inherently connected to matter through the brain. 6. But to my main point contradictions do exist in the physical world as x is not y and y is not x, because y=/=x there is opposition in identity because of their distinctions. Distinctions are contradictions.
1.) Read Rupert Sheldrake - "The science delusion" - and you will see that the idea of the brain being the seat of awareness is just contemporary belief that has no substantial grounding - little different from other eras where it was considered to be the heart. Sheldrake locates the psycho-physical connection as being the spine. And he also claims that the brain is merely used for cooling the blood. He cites numerous cases of people that had little more than cerebral fluid inside their skulls, but functioned normally. There is also the classic case of Phineas Gage whose accident proved that the frontal lobes are not necessary. There are numerous other counter-claims to the popular brain theory, not the least being the meditations of Rene Descartes who founded the scientific method.
But for me, the clearest example is the absolute failure of 'neuroscience' in being unable to predict nor cure all the classic types of mental illness, which are more prevalent in the world today than at any time in recorded history. "Brain-science" is little more than astrology, as is so much of contemporary medicine.
6.) This is a semantic point you make, not one of ontology. You lose semantic traction by saying that, for example "light contradicts darkness". That is just poor use of language because the correct use would be to say "It is a contradiction to claim that light is equal to darkness".
👏👌I couldn't agree more
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:36:01 GMT
1. The meaning of word is directed to how you like it; meaning is what is "liked". 2. "No necessities" is a negative law which means words can be directed to anything thus even subjectively created words have meaning. 3. Use is meaning thus all words have meanings. Even the made up word salskdjfas means salskdjfas; this self referencing points to itself thus resulting in an indefinite word but even with this indefiniteness it still means itself, salskdjfas points to the experience of manifesting salskdjfas. Dually the symbols mean the pronunciation and the pronunciation means the symbols thus resulting in a meta-meaning. It is exists it points. I agree on 1. The 2nd is not quite the same what I said. Yes, the necessity can be taken as you propose, but in case of mine the necessity is a modal logic operator and it means "it is not impossible" or "this can be or this cannot be". Since "this can be or this cannot be" logically the same as "p v ~p", and it leads to the third logic law, then "p v ~p" is true. So, "no necessary" takes out any talks of any kinds of modality. You can just remove this word easily from the phrase. Just let me explain it once again: "no necessary" might be taken as something else, while in my case it's a logical operator. I could use words whichever I like. 3. Well, I wouldn't agree that a word "anonimoys" has meaning of "anonimoys". Oh, no. It's not necessary. I can use a word like "xxx" referring it to "3" or to "6", but there's no necessity "xxx" = "3" or "6", or "xxx". Only truth lasts, everything else is broken. This last remark is the same as logical law of inference: Semantically: "A→B" is true if A is false, or B is true. (The law of correlation) Logically: "A→B" is true if and only if it is impossible that A is true and B is false (The law of inference). 1. That which is not possible is a negative limit to that which is and therefore acts as a form of definition which furthermore results in meaning. 2. All words, due to the law of identity, are self-referential thus mean themselves.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:39:14 GMT
1. Thoughts are inherently connected to matter through the brain. 6. But to my main point contradictions do exist in the physical world as x is not y and y is not x, because y=/=x there is opposition in identity because of their distinctions. Distinctions are contradictions.
1.) Read Rupert Sheldrake - "The science delusion" - and you will see that the idea of the brain being the seat of awareness is just contemporary belief that has no substantial grounding - little different from other eras where it was considered to be the heart. Sheldrake locates the psycho-physical connection as being the spine. And he also claims that the brain is merely used for cooling the blood. He cites numerous cases of people that had little more than cerebral fluid inside their skulls, but functioned normally. There is also the classic case of Phineas Gage whose accident proved that the frontal lobes are not necessary. There are numerous other counter-claims to the popular brain theory, not the least being the meditations of Rene Descartes who founded the scientific method.
But for me, the clearest example is the absolute failure of 'neuroscience' in being unable to predict nor cure all the classic types of mental illness, which are more prevalent in the world today than at any time in recorded history. "Brain-science" is little more than astrology, as is so much of contemporary medicine.
6.) This is a semantic point you make, not one of ontology. You lose semantic traction by saying that, for example "light contradicts darkness". That is just poor use of language because the correct use would be to say "It is a contradiction to claim that light is equal to darkness".
1. My neighbor has brain tumors, it is affecting her awareness. For example she use to know how to use a cash register, then the brain tumors occurred (plus brain surgery for the tumors) and now she cannot decipher how to use one. The brain is an intermediary which connects the mind to matter. 2. Light is the opposite of darkness, this nature of "opposite" is the same nature of "opposition" thus a contradiction results.
|
|