The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
That “the nature of thoughts” is “locality” was your assertion.
So you think your thoughs come from someone or somewhere elese?
How did he ‘invent a Hobbit’ if not by or without defining it?
So a Hobbit must have existed before it was defined.
So one can ’invent things’ by defining something “out of non-existence”.
No you have
Simply nonsense, anything that is invented by its definition only ‘exists’ as its definition. If it ’existed’ before that definition or independently of that definition then it was not invented by that definition. By your assertions anything that is not a member of a particular set must “exist” in order not to be a member of that set. Therefore the empty set invents everything since it has no members and there is no such thing as “non-existence” as you asserted before. Because even things that do not yet “exist” (as a definition or otherwise) are not a member of the empty set and must therefore “exist” (by your assertion) in order not to be a member of the empty set. Just your usual self contradictory nonsense.
No that is just “Inventing things” “using our imagination in order to create X out of non-existence” by defining X. Nothing circular about it, but it does completely refute your assertions that “Defining things determines the limitations of already existing things in order to use them for our propose.”
Your reasoning and notions are specifically naïve until you can rigorously define things like “real complexity” and show that such a thing can “exist” as even just a self consistent definition.
“energy flow” can be found in closed systems, the only thing that makes a system closed is that energy does not ‘flow’ into or out of that system, it can still ‘flow’ within the system, the difference is rather significant. Entropy can also increase or decrease in an open system, but will only increase in a closed system, again the difference is rather significant.
Again your inability to show that “0-dim elements” cannot “completely cover a 1-dim element” make your assertions meaningless as well as the fact that open systems have entropy.
You have already asserted that “Inventing things is using our imagination in order to create X out of non-existence” thus things can be invented “out of non-existence” by simply defining them. Since by your own assertions “non-existence” does not preclude “Inventing things” like just a definition and your “Direct perception” relates only to “already existing things” the definition “in order to create X out of non-existence” must precede your “Direct perception” of that “existence” which is only its definition. Your claim about the ability to “create X out of non-existence” completely refutes your claim that “Direct perception is the source of definitions”
