|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 17:09:33 GMT
Let's say the universe is made or consist of the particles. It consists of the tiny particles or, for the topic's sake, the atoms.
There are no two similar atoms.
According to Leibniz's law if two things (X and Y) are identical, it means that both those things are equal and interchangeable (X=Y), besides there are no two things there is only just one thing (either X is Y, or Y is X; it's impossible that X and Y).
You can think of the atoms as numbers on the Descartes's coordinates sets. As you can see there are no two identical numbers, each cage in this coordinates is unique.
The same - the lack of identity - is among the atoms.
Therefore, there are only unique and different atoms.
Because a mediator should be the same as two other ones atoms, there have to be no mediators.
Therefore, there are no mediators, or the mediate atoms.
Then how to explain that we take (sometimes) two or more things as identical? How can it be?
This is an illusion. We can take this view only if we imagine that despite all the necessities such a case would be possible. However, such a case must be false, and then if we still on this line - this would mean our view would be false.
The last one doesn't mean we cannot hold any false views; no, we can.
In the past people used to think the Sun went round the Earth; before it people thought about the Earth as a flat disc, and so on. Even today such false thoughts happen. And the forms or the ideas is precisely the case.
How can a form or a idea could be if such an idea should duplicate its correspondence? Besides, each idea or a form allows to accept uncountable number of ideas. So, if there would be two or more identical ideas, it would be a contradiction. Since no ideas or forms allow contradictions, there couldn't be any ideas or forms. (By the way, what about a form or an idea of contradiction? How such a form or an idea can exist at all?)
As we can see so forms so ideas are just nothing, but illusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 22:09:58 GMT
Let's say the universe is made or consist of the particles. It consists of the tiny particles or, for the topic's sake, the atoms. There are no two similar atoms. According to Leibniz's law if two things (X and Y) are identical, it means that both those things are equal and interchangeable (X=Y), besides there are no two things there is only just one thing (either X is Y, or Y is X; it's impossible that X and Y). You can think of the atoms as numbers on the Descartes's coordinates sets. As you can see there are no two identical numbers, each cage in this coordinates is unique. The same - the lack of identity - is among the atoms. Therefore, there are only unique and different atoms. Because a mediator should be the same as two other ones atoms, there have to be no mediators. Therefore, there are no mediators, or the mediate atoms. Then how to explain that we take (sometimes) two or more things as identical? How can it be? This is an illusion. We can take this view only if we imagine that despite all the necessities such a case would be possible. However, such a case must be false, and then if we still on this line - this would mean our view would be false. The last one doesn't mean we cannot hold any false views; no, we can. In the past people used to think the Sun went round the Earth; before it people thought about the Earth as a flat disc, and so on. Even today such false thoughts happen. And the forms or the ideas is precisely the case. How can a form or a idea could be if such an idea should duplicate its correspondence? Besides, each idea or a form allows to accept uncountable number of ideas. So, if there would be two or more identical ideas, it would be a contradiction. Since no ideas or forms allow contradictions, there couldn't be any ideas or forms. (By the way, what about a form or an idea of contradiction? How such a form or an idea can exist at all?) As we can see so forms so ideas are just nothing, but illusions. 1. Unique and different atoms all point to a nature of atom thus seemingly distinct phenomenon equivocate. 2. To say "all ideas are illusions" is in itself an idea. 3. To say "all forms are illusions" is to first point to a form and say it does not exist while one is pointing to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 22:14:42 GMT
Let's say the universe is made or consist of the particles. It consists of the tiny particles or, for the topic's sake, the atoms. There are no two similar atoms. According to Leibniz's law if two things (X and Y) are identical, it means that both those things are equal and interchangeable (X=Y), besides there are no two things there is only just one thing (either X is Y, or Y is X; it's impossible that X and Y). You can think of the atoms as numbers on the Descartes's coordinates sets. As you can see there are no two identical numbers, each cage in this coordinates is unique. The same - the lack of identity - is among the atoms. Therefore, there are only unique and different atoms. Because a mediator should be the same as two other ones atoms, there have to be no mediators. Therefore, there are no mediators, or the mediate atoms. Then how to explain that we take (sometimes) two or more things as identical? How can it be? This is an illusion. We can take this view only if we imagine that despite all the necessities such a case would be possible. However, such a case must be false, and then if we still on this line - this would mean our view would be false. The last one doesn't mean we cannot hold any false views; no, we can. In the past people used to think the Sun went round the Earth; before it people thought about the Earth as a flat disc, and so on. Even today such false thoughts happen. And the forms or the ideas is precisely the case. How can a form or a idea could be if such an idea should duplicate its correspondence? Besides, each idea or a form allows to accept uncountable number of ideas. So, if there would be two or more identical ideas, it would be a contradiction. Since no ideas or forms allow contradictions, there couldn't be any ideas or forms. (By the way, what about a form or an idea of contradiction? How such a form or an idea can exist at all?) As we can see so forms so ideas are just nothing, but illusions. 1. Unique and different atoms all point to a nature of atom thus seemingly distinct phenomenon equivocate. 2. To say "all ideas are illusions" is in itself an idea. 3. To say "all forms are illusions" is to first point to a form and say it does not exist while one is pointing to it. I take forms and ideas as synonyms via Plato's theory of forms (or ideas). I don't really care whether 'all ideas are illusions' is idea. The word "illusion" has no sense and has no reference until you know what is it - have a phaenomena of it. If you agree on it with me, this phrase is not an idea for you. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 23:05:39 GMT
1. Unique and different atoms all point to a nature of atom thus seemingly distinct phenomenon equivocate. 2. To say "all ideas are illusions" is in itself an idea. 3. To say "all forms are illusions" is to first point to a form and say it does not exist while one is pointing to it. I take forms and ideas as synonyms via Plato's theory of forms (or ideas). I don't really care whether 'all ideas are illusions' is idea. The word "illusion" has no sense and has no reference until you know what is it - have a phaenomena of it. If you agree on it with me, this phrase is not an idea for you. Of course you have to dismiss "'all ideas are illusions' is an idea" because it debunks your stance. To state "all ideas are illusions" goes beyond Plato's theories as it incorporates what is beyond Plato (all). Illusion has no sense until it is contrasted against what is not an illusion; an idea has to contrast to what is not an idea, but this results in what is not an idea becoming an idea when it is perceived by the mind...which results in contradiction. Ideas exist as what you point too as "not existing" must be pointed too. The action of pointing necessitates its existence. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 4, 2022 16:16:41 GMT
You need to look at that word: "interchangeable".
The interchanging itself defines the atoms somewhat.
But only superficially.
The words "atom" and "soul" are in many ways the same idea.
And how to unite those two ideas is something of a
philosophical holy grail.
Here is a perfectly fantastical idea that is likely wrong,
but its an amusing simplistic perspective:
Every soul is actually an atom of a very high atomic number.
The periodic table goes a little over a hundred,
and beyond that we are told are too unstable to exist meaningfully.
But in my sci-fi narrative, each soul begins at atomic number X,
where X is somewhere in the thousands, like 144001:
the atom of Jesus,
and beyond that there are only 143999 more souls
that can actually exist.
All other people are like unfertile eggs....
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 4, 2022 16:53:02 GMT
You need to look at that word: "interchangeable". The interchanging itself defines the atoms somewhat. But only superficially. The words "atom" and "soul" are in many ways the same idea. And how to unite those two ideas is something of a philosophical holy grail. Here is a perfectly fantastical idea that is likely wrong, but its an amusing simplistic perspective: Every soul is actually an atom of a very high atomic number. The periodic table goes a little over a hundred, and beyond that we are told are too unstable to exist meaningfully. But in my sci-fi narrative, each soul begins at atomic number X, where X is somewhere in the thousands, like 144001: the atom of Jesus, and beyond that there are only 143999 more souls that can actually exist. All other people are like unfertile eggs.... Maybe it is. The idea is interesting. But, what does it mean 144 001 atoms of Jesus? Never heard anything about it before. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Feb 4, 2022 21:36:15 GMT
Let's say the universe is made or consist of the particles. It consists of the tiny particles or, for the topic's sake, the atoms. There are no two similar atoms. According to Leibniz's law if two things (X and Y) are identical, it means that both those things are equal and interchangeable (X=Y), besides there are no two things there is only just one thing (either X is Y, or Y is X; it's impossible that X and Y). You can think of the atoms as numbers on the Descartes's coordinates sets. As you can see there are no two identical numbers, each cage in this coordinates is unique. The same - the lack of identity - is among the atoms. Therefore, there are only unique and different atoms. Because a mediator should be the same as two other ones atoms, there have to be no mediators. Therefore, there are no mediators, or the mediate atoms. Then how to explain that we take (sometimes) two or more things as identical? How can it be? This is an illusion. We can take this view only if we imagine that despite all the necessities such a case would be possible. However, such a case must be false, and then if we still on this line - this would mean our view would be false. The last one doesn't mean we cannot hold any false views; no, we can. In the past people used to think the Sun went round the Earth; before it people thought about the Earth as a flat disc, and so on. Even today such false thoughts happen. And the forms or the ideas is precisely the case. How can a form or a idea could be if such an idea should duplicate its correspondence? Besides, each idea or a form allows to accept uncountable number of ideas. So, if there would be two or more identical ideas, it would be a contradiction. Since no ideas or forms allow contradictions, there couldn't be any ideas or forms. (By the way, what about a form or an idea of contradiction? How such a form or an idea can exist at all?) As we can see so forms so ideas are just nothing, but illusions. Eugene, I am sorry to say that while I was reading, I kept on feeling itches under my fingernails. So, at least for now, I will direct my criticism to your conclusion, which I read as "Forms or Ideas [generally or, specifically, Plato's eidE] are nothing but illusions". What is an illusion? If we were dealing with perceptual experiences, we might say that some of them are nothing but mirages. Thus, illusion = mirage, in meaning: something appears [we become conscious of] and seems to be authentic ["true"], but it is actually spurious ["false" -- just as some historical thoughts/opinions] -- falsely judged. So, saying that an Idea is an illusion is to view it in terms of our judgements; it's saying that it is nothing but a conceptual mirage. Are there conceptual mirages? Are there pain mirages? Are there love mirages? Are actors experts in feigning pain, love, etc.? By words and gestures, do actors creates mirages? Are literature fictions linguistic mirages? Congratulation for provoking such issues. a conceptual mirage. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 5, 2022 6:08:04 GMT
Let's say the universe is made or consist of the particles. It consists of the tiny particles or, for the topic's sake, the atoms. There are no two similar atoms. According to Leibniz's law if two things (X and Y) are identical, it means that both those things are equal and interchangeable (X=Y), besides there are no two things there is only just one thing (either X is Y, or Y is X; it's impossible that X and Y). You can think of the atoms as numbers on the Descartes's coordinates sets. As you can see there are no two identical numbers, each cage in this coordinates is unique. The same - the lack of identity - is among the atoms. Therefore, there are only unique and different atoms. Because a mediator should be the same as two other ones atoms, there have to be no mediators. Therefore, there are no mediators, or the mediate atoms. Then how to explain that we take (sometimes) two or more things as identical? How can it be? This is an illusion. We can take this view only if we imagine that despite all the necessities such a case would be possible. However, such a case must be false, and then if we still on this line - this would mean our view would be false. The last one doesn't mean we cannot hold any false views; no, we can. In the past people used to think the Sun went round the Earth; before it people thought about the Earth as a flat disc, and so on. Even today such false thoughts happen. And the forms or the ideas is precisely the case. How can a form or a idea could be if such an idea should duplicate its correspondence? Besides, each idea or a form allows to accept uncountable number of ideas. So, if there would be two or more identical ideas, it would be a contradiction. Since no ideas or forms allow contradictions, there couldn't be any ideas or forms. (By the way, what about a form or an idea of contradiction? How such a form or an idea can exist at all?) As we can see so forms so ideas are just nothing, but illusions. Eugene, I am sorry to say that while I was reading, I kept on feeling itches under my fingernails. So, at least for now, I will direct my criticism to your conclusion, which I read as "Forms or Ideas [generally or, specifically, Plato's eidE] are nothing but illusions". What is an illusion? If we were dealing with perceptual experiences, we might say that some of them are nothing but mirages. Thus, illusion = mirage, in meaning: something appears [we become conscious of] and seems to be authentic ["true"], but it is actually spurious ["false" -- just as some historical thoughts/opinions] -- falsely judged. So, saying that an Idea is an illusion is to view it in terms of our judgements; it's saying that it is nothing but a conceptual mirage. Are there conceptual mirages? Are there pain mirages? Are there love mirages? Are actors experts in feigning pain, love, etc.? By words and gestures, do actors creates mirages? Are literature fictions linguistic mirages? Congratulation for provoking such issues. a conceptual mirage. Firstly some notifications: a) I do accept critics; b) often I try to challenge myself asking the opposite to my view questions. For instance, I believe the Law of Excluded Middle (in logic) works, but to challenge it I ask whether any counterexamples can be found? It doesn't work in any case, whereas it's a good way to detect weak points of my thesis. Thank you for revealing me weak points of my view. Yes, I agree that to say l these are illusions illusions are such and such is rather weird, because that such and such can be not less that "these", than I used to think about that. Besides, no matter how hard I tried to get rid of an idea of the ideas it failed each time. I can illustrate it using a fragment from one of G. Frege's works. Frege differed meaningful from meaningfulness sentences. To the first category he put sentences with a functional component within/inside. I'll explain, firstly a word has a reference or it refers to something (except for using the serving words; so such a case would be an exception), and the reference briefly can be taken as another word or an object, or simply as a certain reference. And if we don't know the rules how to refer to that word, object, or kinda we only memorize not think about the usage of the word (that refers to something). More plainly, a word has some others changeable and unchangeable parts (along with suffixes, prefixes, etc), and a stable part of it governs the general strategy of how or to what the reference is directed, and the unstable part responses a way of how that reference is needed to be changed. More briefly, if such a word doesn't have stable parts there's no way to associate them correctly. Here are examples: a) Cato (the younger) killed Cato b) x killed Cato c) Cato killed x d) x killed x e) x killed z f) x y z First refers to some textbook or similar example (so, indeed it refers to the peculiar situation, but that situation is an event, and just a part of the story). The 2nd and 3rd are functions with one variable or a stable with an unstable parts. 4th is also a function with one unchangeable and one duplicated changeable parts. 5th is another, more wide way to express the 4th, because we may be not so sure about two variables; and this example is still variable/invariable one. The last one demonstrates that we don't know how to govern this one, except for knowing that there are just three gaps or variables (besides, maybe two or one, considering the case of 5th and 4th). So the last one is an example of meaningless sentence. Be the way, if the previous examples (except for the 1st) had no additions or no elements to complete the sentences, those would be empty also. For why this example is brought by me and for which purposes? By it I wanted to demonstrate that even the last example of 6th is not empty completely since we still have a chance to count variables. And it doesn't even matter how senseless or meaningless the sentence is, because we can say something about it, so it means there's an idea for it – for a senseless one. In other words, if that idea would be really meaningful, there would be no chances to say anything about it. |
|
