Nonsense.
So, if that something that held reality together were in effect indestructible, does that mean that it truly is unalterable, and hence absolute? How much closer to the notion of perfection can you get than that? It sounds to me like all of the so-called flaws that we see in the reality around us, coming from the same indestructible source that is, were merely planned that way and, I mean deliberately.
No, I think the question is, can you have perfection without variables? In which case I would answer by posing another question ... How can you have anything without variables? Can you have a singularity comprised of absolute nothingness? So, if it's all "cut from the same cloth," and contained within the same singularity, shouldn't that ultimately be definitive of perfection?
That's the nice thing about circular definitions. Whatever you find, you can say it is perfection. "Look how perfectly identical they are--each one the same; perfect." "Look at the intricate variability--no two the same; perfect."
Look at your definition of perfection--it fits every possible state of being, from chaos to rigid order. It excludes no possibility, and thereby is utterly useless as a definition; perfect.
Look at your definition of perfection--it fits every possible state of being, from chaos to rigid order. It excludes no possibility, and thereby is utterly useless as a definition; perfect.
Elind
Philosopher
Perhaps, but I thought you were asking if one could "look" at two fundamental particles and see any difference.
And, just because our perceptions of reality may be subjective, does not mean that reality exists in all absoluteness. In fact it must. Or, if there was anything the least bit imperfect about the fabric it was woven from, it would all unravel right before our very eyes. But then again, if that were the case, there would have been nothing here in the first place.
For an additional ten points, Iacchus, dissect your post for circularity, and indicate why it is logically useless as an argument. Feel free to consult any of the scores of previous threads in which the circularity of your arguments has been laid bare.
Actually, I'm looking at it more terms of the uniformity of the whole and, subsequent predictability. Everything seems to be pretty basic and fundamental in other words.
Last edited:
Am merely pointing out that there's a difference between what we perceive and, that which exists in all actuality. Why, do you have a problem with that?
In other words there must be something there and, it must exist in all absoluteness in order for us to perceive that it's there. Things exist, only because there is an absolute basis for their existence ... derived from the singularity of existence that is.
No, you are not pointing that out. You may think you are, and if you were to point that out I would agree with you, and point out that science is the method by which we are most able to see that there is such a difference.
In actuality, though, you were pointing out nothing of the sort, but were engaging in an exercise in circularity, spinning your wheels and assuming your conclusions.
If you were to educate yourself on these logical errors, perhaps you would be better able to express what you claim you are "merely pointing out". Why you feel the need to obfuscate your mere points in bad logic, false claims of fact, and excruciatingly bad metaphors is beyond me.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Why is this so, other than because you have said it? It sounds to me like gobbledygook. Can you explain it in terms that actually mean something?
Why must anything at all exist in "all absoluteness" for us to perceive it. Can we not perceive things that are relative? Who says? What do you actually mean by the word "absolute?" Why must existence be singular? What do you mean by the word "singular?" Why can existence not be plural?
For that matter, what is meant by the word "perfect?" What basis do you have for calling anything perfect? You seem to be saying that because we can perceive no differences between subatomic particles, they must be perfect, and from that comes the assumption of absolutes. Either that or you have assumed the need for perfection a priori. You define perfection to imply singularity, lack of variation, and what appears to be a monistic absoluteness, and then derive assumptions from the definition, but the definition does not carry any implication that the thing defined either exists or is possible. Perhaps the fabric of the universe is not perfect, uniform, or predictable. On what basis do you claim that imperfection would cause it to unravel before our eyes? For that matter, on what basis can you claim that this is not exactly what it is doing? Perhaps the evolution of the universe, its expansion and change, is exactly that: a huge and complex unraveling on its way to shapeless oblivion. Perhaps, if your definition of perfection is accurate, we should simply conclude that all the evidence of a variable, unpredictable, changing universe means that there is no such thing as perfection. I should think that theists would welcome that conclusion, since a perfect God could not logically be so if his creation were also perfect.
All I keep seeing are statements that purport to be obvious or simple, but consist of baseless assumptions and the circular arguments that arise from them.
And it sounds like what you're saying is that it's not possible for things to exist as a matter of fact. So, do you think it would have been possible for the Russians to reverse-engineer the technology of our jet fighters without a jet fighter to reverse-engineer the technology from? And, while you may in fact not understand the basis of which I'm working from, this is not my problem, at least not in the terms that you put it.
I believe Kant said something to this effect. But that shouldn't necessarily make it so -- or, not so -- either now should it?
Is it baseless to suggest that it looks like one big "paint by numbers" set? At the very least this tell us that the structure of reality can readily be broken down into a simplified mathematical equation ... which, when plotted on some sort of matrix or grid, suggests that we could very well be living in some sort of hologram.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
At the very least? Readily? Simplified? Let us know when you have the equation.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you have a "Magnetic Philosophy" kit stuck to your icebox or something?
AnotherSillyAlias
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,522
I'm beginning to suspect his entire existence and philosophy is derived solely from the Matrix movies.
Lynx2174
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 250
if the atoms were truely precise and accurate, would not they all decay at the same time, instead of randomly decaying over a period of time?