|
|
P = -P
Sept 14, 2020 14:41:26 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2020 14:41:26 GMT
P and -P are both symmetrical opposites to eachother thus necessitating a middle term. An empty glass and a full glass both show the glass form as constant. The empty space is in the shape of the glass. The material in the glass shows the shape of the glass. In both cases the shape of the glass is present.
For further example a horse being present results in the form of the horse in contrast to something else, such as a field. The horse not being present shows an emptiness in the contrast in the form of the horse. The absence of grazing shows a distinction within the form of the field compared to if the horse was grazing. The horse as absent shows an absence of effects within the field thus showing an absence of the horse.
The horse being present and the horse not being present both shows the form of the horse.
P=-P thus results in a middle term of P being present. The mediation of P can be expressed further where P=-P can be expressed as +P=-P where P is the underlying recursive term which underlies "+ = -". P thus allows both "+" and "-" to equivocate through a center term which repeats. P is thus the intrinsic form which underlies both +P and -P.
Another example of P=-P can be observed with a glass with some water in it. Is the glass half empty or half full? It is empty as half empty, full as half full. It is both thus the glass is both full and empty of water. What allows these opposites to equivocate is the middle form of the glass itself.
|
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 17, 2020 5:02:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 17, 2020 5:02:00 GMT
What do you call the middle term is a necessary condition or a necessary clause for both to be abto to be compared.
In other words, if there were absolutely no common elements for each (p, ~p), there were no talkings about that. Really, if we never pay attention to p and ~p being taken as both (mentally or not only mentally), we never knew nothing about any possible of their structures and p an ~p would never be said at the same page or at the same time, etc.
And because of the middle term p and ~p are different as well as any p is a contradiction to itself, i.e. ~(p=p). Plus, p does equal to p, and does not; p does equal to ~p, and thus does not.
|
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 17, 2020 5:06:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 17, 2020 5:06:31 GMT
A horse is inseparable from its surroundings. It's impossible to take out anything from the reality just like cutting it out with scissors. That's why the lack of horse that looks like the horse being cut from the reality can be viewed if and only if such a situation is imaginary.
|
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 18, 2020 2:54:03 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 18, 2020 2:54:03 GMT
A horse is inseparable from its surroundings. It's impossible to take out anything from the reality just like cutting it out with scissors. That's why the lack of horse that looks like the horse being cut from the reality can be viewed if and only if such a situation is imaginary. False, the absence of horse observes a difference in the field. The field is absent of any grazing or tracks from the horse thus reflects an absence of the horse. The horse form is reflected as either present or absent thus the horse form is always reflected in the field. |
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 18, 2020 2:55:13 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 18, 2020 2:55:13 GMT
What do you call the middle term is a necessary condition or a necessary clause for both to be abto to be compared. In other words, if there were absolutely no common elements for each (p, ~p), there were no talkings about that. Really, if we never pay attention to p and ~p being taken as both (mentally or not only mentally), we never knew nothing about any possible of their structures and p an ~p would never be said at the same page or at the same time, etc. And because of the middle term p and ~p are different as well as any p is a contradiction to itself, i.e. ~(p=p). Plus, p does equal to p, and does not; p does equal to ~p, and thus does not. "P=-P thus results in a middle term of P being present. The mediation of P can be expressed further where P=-P can be expressed as +P=-P where P is the underlying recursive term which underlies "+ = -". P thus allows both "+" and "-" to equivocate through a center term which repeats. P is thus the intrinsic form which underlies both +P and -P." |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 18, 2020 4:41:18 GMT
Well in math P would not equal -P unless it's written as |P|=|-P| which would be where your distance comes in for being symmetrical opposites.
|
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 18, 2020 14:43:51 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 18, 2020 14:43:51 GMT
A horse is inseparable from its surroundings. It's impossible to take out anything from the reality just like cutting it out with scissors. That's why the lack of horse that looks like the horse being cut from the reality can be viewed if and only if such a situation is imaginary. False, the absence of horse observes a difference in the field. The field is absent of any grazing or tracks from the horse thus reflects an absence of the horse. The horse form is reflected as either present or absent thus the horse form is always reflected in the field. The absence of anything might be different. You take one of those. When you ride a horse you don't have to know how the horse is completed or what's inside it. All you need to know is that yhe horse fills right equal in the invoronment, and it does it functions well. It could happen (not yet in this world) and it would be the same as an observed form of horse is skipping down the lane. Also, you're saying "the absence of a horse", in turn, you suppose sch thing as horse exits and doesn't exist at the same time, therefore oxymoron happens. It happens not only with horses, but with any other things. It means that we don't use phrases like "the absence of vodka", and we use phrases like "there is no vodka". As the same you mentioned dialectic of apophatic and cataphatic ways, taking apophatic method to claim that there is an absence of a particular thing. Apophatic way supposes that no way to deny some deities while the others can be denied easily. Hence, your method isn't fair for such a case, because it's not obvious what suppositions lay behind your apophatic method. It's also important to note that horses are what they seem to be so. You can't truly say – this is a horse, or that is a horse. Each observations would fail. |
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 19, 2020 2:35:18 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 19, 2020 2:35:18 GMT
Well in math P would not equal -P unless it's written as |P|=|-P| which would be where your distance comes in for being symmetrical opposites. Both +1 and -1 require the middle common term of 1 in defining them. Both +1 and -1 are symmetrically the same distance from point 0. As quantifiers the distance from point 0 is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 19, 2020 2:44:35 GMT
False, the absence of horse observes a difference in the field. The field is absent of any grazing or tracks from the horse thus reflects an absence of the horse. The horse form is reflected as either present or absent thus the horse form is always reflected in the field. The absence of anything might be different. You take one of those. All absence of phenomenon reflect within a given context. The absence of x,y,a in a field reflects the field as having certain characteristics.When you ride a horse you don't have to know how the horse is completed or what's inside it. All you need to know is that yhe horse fills right equal in the invoronment, and it does it functions well. It could happen (not yet in this world) and it would be the same as an observed form of horse is skipping down the lane. The horse has an effect on the environment.Also, you're saying "the absence of a horse", in turn, you suppose sch thing as horse exits and doesn't exist at the same time, therefore oxymoron happens. It happens not only with horses, but with any other things. It means that we don't use phrases like "the absence of vodka", and we use phrases like "there is no vodka". It exists in x position and not in y. It exists and doesn't exist simultaneously given its position.As the same you mentioned dialectic of apophatic and cataphatic ways, taking apophatic method to claim that there is an absence of a particular thing. Apophatic way supposes that no way to deny some deities while the others can be denied easily. Hence, your method isn't fair for such a case, because it's not obvious what suppositions lay behind your apophatic method. Apophatic knowledge is knowledge through negation, it observes only what a thing is not. Observing how something behaves through the absence of x presence observes the phenomenon for what it is.It's also important to note that horses are what they seem to be so. You can't truly say – this is a horse, or that is a horse. Each observations would fail. You cannot say a horse is what it seems to be without pointing to a horse and say this is a horse or that is a horse. "A horse is what it seems to be" is pointing to some phenomenon called horse, thus you contradict yourself. |
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 19, 2020 4:17:19 GMT
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 19, 2020 4:17:19 GMT
Well in math P would not equal -P unless it's written as |P|=|-P| which would be where your distance comes in for being symmetrical opposites. Both +1 and -1 require the middle common term of 1 in defining them. Both +1 and -1 are symmetrically the same distance from point 0. As quantifiers the distance from point 0 is the same. That's what I said in my second part "unless it's written as |P|=|-P| which would be where your distance comes in for being symmetrical opposites." |
|
|
|
P = -P
Sept 19, 2020 10:34:02 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 19, 2020 10:34:02 GMT
xxxxxxxxx1. Yeah, contextually. But take a look at negative atheists for example or skeptical atheists: the firsts don't know anything about God, and they are unaware of His being; the seconds don't believe in what the question of God's being can be raised. It shows that there are different kinds of it: an object is not being seen, and object is being untrusted. Abscene by you can be defined with the specific set of instruments, but it (the absence) may be tuned by something except for our cognitive abilities, plus some other various tools might have influenced on it – to mode its shape or etc. 2. I guess it is as the environment has been impacting on it. They do it quite united, and not just only united, because their union is confronted the opposite union of non-abscence&non-horse along with absence&non-horse, and non-abscence&horse: all the imaginary combinations resist and support simultaneously and at different moments to the horse. 3. ? What x or y? I don't understand. 4. The fact is there seems to be no other way (as Carnap said in "Elimination of Metaphysics..."): to explore the absence is to explore what cannot be the absence, and what is left might be the absence. When we say that: this particular x doesn't exist we mean that there is a theory (the context) within x is supposed to exist, but there is a falsification of this theory (there is one x that doesn't fit to our theory), therefore such x doesn't exist. If we would check all the possible theories with x, and all of them had been failed, then there would be no other quite sane answer except for: there is no x. Nevertheless, it would not mean there is the absence of x, because we didn't search for it. The absence would appear if instead of pursuing the x, we would hunt for the absence of x. 5. Even if I did point, what would happen then? All the points about what we had agreed would flew away, disappeared, etc. All the horses are constantly changes (as any forms and formlessnesses – as they equal); even our bodies change all the atoms during eight years. But despite of those problems, a horse is a concept in a head. I can agree it appeared because we previously have met them (those creatures) and our heads can reproduce them somehow. Then, a horse is what I would be looking for, and if I wouldn't know the image or criteria, how would I dare to find it?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 19, 2020 22:43:04 GMT
xxxxxxxxx 1. Yeah, contextually. But take a look at negative atheists for example or skeptical atheists: the firsts don't know anything about God, and they are unaware of His being; the seconds don't believe in what the question of God's being can be raised. It shows that there are different kinds of it: an object is not being seen, and object is being untrusted. Abscene by you can be defined with the specific set of instruments, but it (the absence) may be tuned by something except for our cognitive abilities, plus some other various tools might have influenced on it – to mode its shape or etc. 2. I guess it is as the environment has been impacting on it. They do it quite united, and not just only united, because their union is confronted the opposite union of non-abscence&non-horse along with absence&non-horse, and non-abscence&horse: all the imaginary combinations resist and support simultaneously and at different moments to the horse. 3. ? What x or y? I don't understand. 4. The fact is there seems to be no other way (as Carnap said in "Elimination of Metaphysics..."): to explore the absence is to explore what cannot be the absence, and what is left might be the absence. When we say that: this particular x doesn't exist we mean that there is a theory (the context) within x is supposed to exist, but there is a falsification of this theory (there is one x that doesn't fit to our theory), therefore such x doesn't exist. If we would check all the possible theories with x, and all of them had been failed, then there would be no other quite sane answer except for: there is no x. Nevertheless, it would not mean there is the absence of x, because we didn't search for it. The absence would appear if instead of pursuing the x, we would hunt for the absence of x. 5. Even if I did point, what would happen then? All the points about what we had agreed would flew away, disappeared, etc. All the horses are constantly changes (as any forms and formlessnesses – as they equal); even our bodies change all the atoms during eight years. But despite of those problems, a horse is a concept in a head. I can agree it appeared because we previously have met them (those creatures) and our heads can reproduce them somehow. Then, a horse is what I would be looking for, and if I wouldn't know the image or criteria, how would I dare to find it? 1. No disagreement. 2. No disagreement. 3. The phenomenon in positions x and y are affected by the positions thus the very same phenomenon differs due to its position. For example, a horse in a stable contains different degrees of mental and physical health compared to a horse which runs wild. Two divergent positions cause the very same phenomenon to differ. 4. Checking all possible theories is not possible given there are unseen variables which exist beyond the mode of testing. 5. The imagination is formed by what is physical. A unicorn is defined by the traits of a horn and horse body, both phenomenon exist in the empirical world. The uniting of these phenomenon may occur in the imagination but the imagination is grounded in what is empirically observed. |
|
