• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
The onus is upon you. You made the claim, remember? According to you and you alone, neutral monism has a scientific basis. Ok, back that up with a distinguishing prediction that can be evaluated scientifically.
Click to expand...

No, no. He's saying that the existence of falsifiable predictions is, itself, a prediction made by neutral monism. He's trying to claim that science being the way it is proves that neutral monism is correct.

It's absolute nonsense, of course, but he's at least trying.
 
Nonpareil said:
No, no. He's saying that the existence of falsifiable predictions is, itself, a prediction made by neutral monism. He's trying to claim that science being the way it is proves that neutral monism is correct.

It's absolute nonsense, of course, but he's at least trying.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Yes, complete nonsense. It also ignores a requirement that predictions not be post hoc.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
According to you and you alone, neutral monism has a scientific basis.
Click to expand...
Wrong jsfishr, your requirement for falsifiable predictions is trivially predicted by Neutral Monism's SOMEx and EVERYx, and again nothing is post hoc, but it is exactly the present and future of the understanding of Science of persons like you that get Science only in terms of falsifiable predictions (where this term (falsifiable predictions) is exactly the reality that is derived from SOMEx and EVERYx, the reality of the naturally variant).

jsfisher said:
Yes, complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Now you contradict yourself, because falsifiable predictions are by principle can't be complete, so your criticism about Neutral Monism is not scientific by your own terms.

EDIT:

Actually your reasoning (scientific, or not) is limited only to SOMEx and EVERYx and as a result it is not sufficient enough (demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10818588&postcount=673) in order to really criticize http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706519&postcount=663.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...gibberish foreshortened...
Click to expand...


You seem to be saying that neutral monism enables science (oh, how you love that word, enable), and you also have said neutral monism has a scientific basis.

The only remaining question, then, is what is the circumference?
 
jsfisher said:
The only remaining question, then, is what is the circumference?
Click to expand...
Since the domain of your reasoning is limited to SOMEx and EVERYx, I predict that the only answer that you can value is that Neutral Monism's circumference is not limited to SOMEx and EVERYx (which is the circumference of your reasoning (scientific, or not) that is not sufficient enough (demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10818588&postcount=673) in order to really criticize http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706519&postcount=663).
 
Last edited:
Well jsfisher, I have predicted that the only valuable answer for you is that Neutral Monism's circumference is not limited to SOMEx and EVERYx.

It seems that you are unable to value this, so we actually get the needed falsifiable prediction.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Well jsfisher, I have predicted that the only valuable answer for you is that Neutral Monism's circumference is not limited to SOMEx and EVERYx.

It seems that you are unable to value this, so we actually get the needed falsifiable prediction.
Click to expand...

Oh my! Nonperil was right. Although my statement was not a nonsense phrase, you gave it a nonsensical interpretation.

The circumference to which I had referred had to do with your argument, not neutral monism.
 
jsfisher said:
Oh my! Nonperil was right.
Click to expand...

I got very good at figuring out where he was going to go next over the course of the materialism thread. He doesn't have very many tricks, really.

And no, he never did give an actual coherent definition for "SOMEx", "unity", or any number of other things that he crowbars into his nonsensical idea of what neutral monism is.

And it's "Nonpareil". :p
 
jsfisher said:
Oh my! Nonperil was right. Although my statement was not a nonsense phrase, you gave it a nonsensical interpretation.
Click to expand...
Well, you have missed my joke about falsifiable predictions.

jsfisher said:
The circumference to which I had referred had to do with your argument, not neutral monism.
Click to expand...
Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10822989&postcount=684.

"...gibberish foreshortened..." is your best understanding of it.
 
Last edited:
EDIT:

jsfisher said:
The onus is upon you. You made the claim, remember? According to you and you alone, neutral monism has a scientific basis. Ok, back that up with a distinguishing prediction that can be evaluated scientifically.
Click to expand...
Once again, Neutral Monism categorically shows that if one understands the basis of Science only in terms of SOMEx and EVERYx, this understanding must be done by distinguishing falsifiable predictions, which means that no prediction can be considered as completely invariant from now on, simply because it is space\time dependent, and all space\time dependent things (which is the domain of Neutral Monism's SOMEx and EVERYx) are naturally variant (more details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10820490&postcount=676).

In other words, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706519&postcount=663 is not limited to your requirements for Science, which is:
jsfisher said:
For anything to have a scientific basis there must be distinguishing falsifiable predictions.
Click to expand...
as predicted by Neutral Monism, and this prediction is naturally invariant (it is not space\time dependent).

Here is some simple diagram of Neutral Monism's reasoning:

Code: 
                      Absolute

                        YESx

                          |
                          |

          Relative     Neutral     Relative

           SOMEx  ---     x    ---  EVERYx

                          |
                          |

                         NOx

                      Absolute

Your reasoning (scientific, or not) is limited only to the relative, but you are not aware of this simple fact, as, for example, demonstrated by your "The cardinality of the domain set is immaterial" in case of abstract mathematics (your reasoning simply missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10677971&postcount=662).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again, Neutral Monism categorically shows that if one understands the basis of Science only in terms of SOMEx and EVERYx, this understanding must be done by distinguishing falsifiable predictions, which means that no prediction can be considered as completely invariant from now on, simply because it is space\time dependent, and all space\time dependent things (which is the domain of Neutral Monism's SOMEx and EVERYx) are naturally variant.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't.
 
The current domain of Science is determined by physical phenomena, where according to Neutral Monism, what is called physical phenomena is simply is SOMEx and EVERYx relative domain.

And indeed infinity must be re-normalized in order to get finite results by the current paradigm of Science, which according to it infinite results must be "hidden" in order to get finite results.

Re-normalization uses regularization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization#Regularization) that is based on the traditional definition of Limit, or in other words, infinity is "hidden" by forcing the finite on the infinite.
 
Last edited:
By Neutral Monism's reasoning there is difference between relative infinity (at the level of collections that is the level of SOMEx and EVERYx) and actual infinity that is the level of YESx.

The definition of limit by Neutral Monism's reasoning is as follows:

Let X be a placeholder for that is summed.

If |X - L| = 0 then L is called the limit of X.

By this definition "that is summed" is at the relative level (the level of collections), where L>0 is at the level of actual infinity (the level of YESx, which is beyond collections)).

A concrete example of the unclosed gap between relative infinity and actual infinity, is given by the following diagram:

4430320710_686e9e991b.jpg


By this diagram there is the sum (notated by 2*(a+b+c+d+...)) of the convergent projection of aleph0 objects (with constant length X>0 each) along length X, such that 2*(a+b+c+d+...) < X, exactly because length X is beyond the sum of the aleph0 projections along it (|X - L| > 0).

In other words, Neutral Monism's reasoning deals directly with the difference between relative infinity (the level of EVERYx) and actual infinity (the level of YESx), and no artificial forcing of the finite on the infinite (and in the traditional case, it is only relative infinity) is used by Neutral Monism's reasoning, as it is clearly used by the traditional reasoning (abstract or physical (where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10834527&postcount=698 is a concrete example of forcing the finite of the relative infinite, by physical science).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom