|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 24, 2020 16:00:00 GMT
All tests are extensions of the observer where the test is the means of approximating a natural environment by observing a specific list of variables which reflect the environment being tested. The test is a means of mimicking variables found in nature where the test itself cannot observe all variables within the natural environment given the variables observed are a projection of the tester's angle of awareness. The test is a projection of the observer and as such necessitates a subjective state of awareness.
This subjective state necessitates that all objective truth, truth which is agreed upon where multiple subjective states align, is grounded in the aforementioned subjectivity where what we deem as truth is fundamentally an angle of awareness, in this case group awareness. This angle of awareness necessitates that given any set of phenomenon only a specific number of variables are observed and the test itself does not address all potential variables.
This nature of testing thus necessitates what is being observed is a series of relationships determined by a series of subjectively observed parameters. These parameters are what is being measured and not the natural environment itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 28, 2020 15:35:52 GMT
a fair bit of text, but it errs in that it conflates subjective with perceptive
all perceptions entail subjectivity, but perceptions can also entail their own objectivity
if we use an example this will be clear, most of your analysis fails to use examples
and thus it winds up in solipsism and circular reasoning - it defeats itself in a semantic
game of trying to pick itself up by its own theoretical bootstrings
how we choose an example is not a matter of logic, but of ethics, values, and until you
reach the point of holding such an idea as having intrinsic value, the debate never gains ground
so take your pick, anti-gravity, genetics, space-travel, art, or whatever you like,
but until you can make a stand for something, its all just self-defeating wordiness
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 29, 2020 1:21:02 GMT
a fair bit of text, but it errs in that it conflates subjective with perceptive all perceptions entail subjectivity, but perceptions can also entail their own objectivity The subjective nature of all observations necessitates all observations as existing through an angle of awareness thus an approximation of the whole truth. Any objectivity is a series of aligning subjective states, objectivity is group subjectivity and/or multiple subjective viewpoints aligning within the self.if we use an example this will be clear, most of your analysis fails to use examples and thus it winds up in solipsism and circular reasoning - it defeats itself in a semantic game of trying to pick itself up by its own theoretical bootstrings In determining the feeding patterns of rats, a test using x,y,z variables necessitates only the variables x,y,z are being measured and not the whole environment considering a,b,c variable may exist beyond this yet not observed.how we choose an example is not a matter of logic, but of ethics, values, and until you reach the point of holding such an idea as having intrinsic value, the debate never gains ground What debate on your part Jon? All you do is accuse anyone who has an idea that is over your head as being a sophist. You go strictly to name calling whenever you cannot respond. I am still waiting for your response about how "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" reconciling with the principle of non-contradiction.so take your pick, anti-gravity, genetics, space-travel, art, or whatever you like, but until you can make a stand for something, its all just self-defeating wordiness I think I will stand for the truth and this truth manifests itself through 3 variables (inherent middle, inherent void and inherent context), you can blame the world for going to shit because of a belief in gravity and convince yourself of being a super duper hero or martyr... . |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 29, 2020 6:28:23 GMT
Newton's third law is not a contradiction. It states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, but not on the same object. If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B will exert an equal and opposite force on object A. Two forces of equal strength, but pointing in opposite directions, exerted on two different objects. No contradiction there.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 29, 2020 16:08:20 GMT
Newton's third law is not a contradiction. It states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, but not on the same object. If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B will exert an equal and opposite force on object A. Two forces of equal strength, but pointing in opposite directions, exerted on two different objects. No contradiction there. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion. The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite. Thus under Newton's law P=-P |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 29, 2020 21:11:36 GMT
The world goes to shit because of unrepentant pedophiles in positions of power.
The gravity thesis merely proves that academia has no logical methodology
and that its processes are entirely corrupt.
A vast difference between the proof and what it reveals about the world.
This is the difference between the empirical and the metaphysical.
The metaphysical is a psychological state that either reflects the
reality of the world, or it reflects the dissonance and failing
of the minds of those at the core of society.
I'm certainly no hero because i have failed to be able to teach
the likes of you and academia the value of genuine truth based on
real logic. Thus society disintegrates around us all.
The hero is the one who puts himself aside and will vouch for the
truth that belongs to others; rather than cling to notions
of sophistry because they are his. You admit to being a sophist already.
So your deceit is typical.
Society dies.
We all lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 30, 2020 3:02:27 GMT
The world goes to shit because of unrepentant pedophiles in positions of power. The gravity thesis merely proves that academia has no logical methodology and that its processes are entirely corrupt. A vast difference between the proof and what it reveals about the world. This is the difference between the empirical and the metaphysical. The metaphysical is a psychological state that either reflects the reality of the world, or it reflects the dissonance and failing of the minds of those at the core of society. I'm certainly no hero because i have failed to be able to teach the likes of you and academia the value of genuine truth based on real logic. Thus society disintegrates around us all. The hero is the one who puts himself aside and will vouch for the truth that belongs to others; rather than cling to notions of sophistry because they are his. You admit to being a sophist already. So your deceit is typical. Society dies. We all lose. And what is this "real" logic Jon? The aristotelian laws of Identity? I have already, on multiple occasions, addressed how faulty they are while providing 3 logical principles to replace them. Inherent middle, inherent void, and inherent context shows three absolute laws to both nature and logic. The only thing I admit too is speaking the truth. A dialectician breaks down a series of propositions to their base groundings. A sophist merely uses persuasive speech to direct and guide others under a proposition. I am both. Why don't you man up intellectually Jon and address the arguments directly rather than crying the words "sophist!". It is almost always a guarantee, Jon, you will ignore any argument you disagree with and accuse it of sophistry when in all fact your work is the same sophistry you accuse others of. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 10, 2020 8:56:30 GMT
Being subjective how can someone be sure about "it's impossible for all the variables to be observed by me". Either this view claim one of the forms of observation process, i.e. the weak one, or it's not correct.
NB: Such notions as "relationship", "relations", and hence all of the notions must have been accessed by our observation ability, and if so observation is manifestation of plurality of smth (some elements, maybe).
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 11, 2020 0:53:49 GMT
Being subjective how can someone be sure about "it's impossible for all the variables to be observed by me". Either this view claim one of the forms of observation process, i.e. the weak one, or it's not correct. NB: Such notions as "relationship", "relations", and hence all of the notions must have been accessed by our observation ability, and if so observation is manifestation of plurality of smth (some elements, maybe). Subjectivity is negated through objectivity where multiple subjective viewpoints, either grounded in intergroup consensus or multiple aspects of the self observing the same thing, result in an objective state. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 11, 2020 10:35:43 GMT
Being subjective how can someone be sure about "it's impossible for all the variables to be observed by me". Either this view claim one of the forms of observation process, i.e. the weak one, or it's not correct. NB: Such notions as "relationship", "relations", and hence all of the notions must have been accessed by our observation ability, and if so observation is manifestation of plurality of smth (some elements, maybe). Subjectivity is negated through objectivity where multiple subjective viewpoints, either grounded in intergroup consensus or multiple aspects of the self observing the same thing, result in an objective state. Subjective view is limited by not having a chance to conclude "ok, and here's the end (of smth)". Induction seem too be attributed not only for aby observer, but also for really wise thinkers, because it makes 'em to claim: "All I know is what I don't know anything". Besides, I was talking about the variables not theorems or laws (general statements). How many viewpoints should I have to say it would be enough? Ok, I accept that there are things which are able to be taken objectively, but their amount must be seriously limited. |
|
.
