I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[LarryS]

If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about mental or physical phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vice versa.

Please look also at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269052.

Thank you.

So Unity is without distinction (boundless) but is capable of making all distinctions (multiplicity). Are you not highjacking the Tao te Ching and other documents?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, yes, we know all of this.

By using multiplicity reasoning you don't know this, simply because Unity is not some phenomenon.

But you're ignoring the bigger question.

You are ignoring the substance of multiplicity.

Has anyone even been so far as even to decide to use even to go look more like?

Again you take the wrong direction, Unity is the closest state of all possible phenomena.

 

[Nonpareil]

By using multiplicity reasoning you don't know this, simply because Unity is not some phenomenon.


You are ignoring the substance of multiplicity.


Again you take the wrong direction, Unity is the closest state of all possible phenomena.

That was a joke, son. Ya missed it. Flew right by ya.

 

[doronshadmi]

So Unity is without distinction (boundless) but is capable of making all distinctions (multiplicity). Are you not highjacking the Tao te Ching and other documents?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

You are drifting from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377819&postcount=590.

Are you not highjacking the Tao te Ching and other documents?

How can one hijacking that enables hijacking?

 

[doronshadmi]

That was a joke, son. Ya missed it. Flew right by ya.

So laugh, but not too far from yourself.

 

[Nonpareil]

On another note, for those watching from the peanut gallery, there is a reason I am not playing doronshadmi's edit games. He has a reputation for wasting time like this.

And that's on top of the amount of time-wasting he does using regular means.

 

[LarryS]

You are drifting from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377819&postcount=590.


How can one hijacking that enables hijacking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMaBQDXOkk

 

[Nonpareil]

There's no point in trying to get an answer out of him, EDIT: Larry. Doron has no interest in defining his terms, even if he does have the ability - which is doubtful, since even ignoring his demonstrable issues with basic mathematics, the concepts he is trying to argue for are very likely incoherent at their bade.

He does this regularly. Take, for example, "parallel summation", which his "unity" is highly reminiscent of.

Doronshadmi is convinced that .999999... is not equal to 1, despite his utter inability to show any situation in which is does not behave exactly as if it is. One of his many attempts to prove that it isn't was to introduce an undefined mathematical operation he called "parallel summation", which was supposed to bypass the whole problem of an infinite series being, well, infinite, by somehow adding up all the digits in it at once.

Or something like that. Like I said, he never defines his terms; the above is the best the other posters in the thread could get out of him. It's impossible, nonsensical, and still very likely more coherent than any definition doronshadmi himself could give.

There was even the whole "you're only right because you are limited by a frame of reference" bit. Over there it was "observing the real number line from the perspective of the cardinality of infinity", or something equally nonsensical. This time he's just substituted "multiplicity viewpoint".

He not only can't define these terms; he won't, because the instant he does so, he not only sacrifices his primary defense - saying "these terms are simply beyond your puny mortal minds" - but it becomes instantly apparent that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. We saw this earlier when he claimed that he was a neutral monist, but claimed that neutral monism held that both materialism and idealism are true; this is wrong on all three counts, as all of those philosophies are mutually exclusive by definition. When this was pointed out, he argued against it for a bit until the fact that he was provably wrong became too much to ignore. Then he resorted to editing his original post and trying to claim victory ehen I refused to waste my time with that game.

This is why he plays at pseudomath. This is why he uses eight-word phrases to refer (poorly) to lines, then backpedals frantically and says they aren't really lines, even though he just gave the definition of a line and the image being referred to is an image of a line. This is why he uses terms like unity and multiplicity, unbounded and infinite, even though his definitions of those are alternately unclear or wrong. Because there's just enough there to tether him, in some ethereal way, to real mathematics.

And mathematics is the domain of intelligent people. So, obviously, if you can't understand him, it's not because he's spouting gibberish. It's because he's a better mathematician than you.

So asking for definitions from him is pointless. Even if he could give them, he wouldn't. Because that would mean leaving his ivory tower and exposing himself to real criticism.

It's not even a catch-22. He couldn't be coherent if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to anyway.

So that's all right.

 

[Belz...]

Only by using your multiplicity reasoning.

This is your standard hand-waving response, but why don't you lighten up to the fact that you aren't making your meanings clear to anyone here ?

 

[Fudbucker]

If a triangle can exist independent of the mind, who is there to give a "descriptor"?

1. If a fish is green, how much does my table weigh?

No, it's that mathematical concepts exist independent of the mind.

2. Concepts? No. Concepts require minds to exist. But mathematical realism talks about entities, not concepts. It speaks of triangles, not our description of triangles.

Those do exist independent of the mind, and I have never said otherwise.

I have just explained this. Mathematics is independent of the interpreter, because mathematics is an objective description of reality.

Which means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagoream Theorem exists in a universe with no conscious beings.

No, it means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagorean theorem applies with no conscious beings.

A theorem is a formulation of principles created by conscious beings. By definition, theorems do not exist without anyone to theorize.

A necessary condition for description is someone to do the describing. In a universe without minds, the mathematical descriptions still exist

No, they don't. Descriptions do not exist without minds.

The things being described still exist.

This is not complicated.

Actually, it's very complicated:

"Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities. For example, a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time and has the characteristics it does regardless of any mental or physical activities of human beings. Mathematical platonists are often called "realists," although, strictly speaking, there can be realists who are not platonists because they do not accept the platonist requirement that mathematical entities be abstract.

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice. In particular, mathematical platonism takes at face-value such well known truths as that "there exist" an infinite number of prime numbers, and it provides straightforward explanations of mathematical objectivity and of the differences between mathematical and spatio-temporal entities. Thus arguments for mathematical platonism typically assert that in order for mathematical theories to be true their logical structure must refer to some mathematical entities, that many mathematical theories are indeed objectively true, and that mathematical entities are not constituents of the spatio-temporal realm."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

 

[tsig]

That was a joke, son. Ya missed it. Flew right by ya.

I say, you're a-pitching but he ain't catching.

 

[Nonpareil]

Actually, it's very complicated:

Well, no. It's really not.

This:

"Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities. For example, a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time and has the characteristics it does regardless of any mental or physical activities of human beings. Mathematical platonists are often called "realists," although, strictly speaking, there can be realists who are not platonists because they do not accept the platonist requirement that mathematical entities be abstract.

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice. In particular, mathematical platonism takes at face-value such well known truths as that "there exist" an infinite number of prime numbers, and it provides straightforward explanations of mathematical objectivity and of the differences between mathematical and spatio-temporal entities. Thus arguments for mathematical platonism typically assert that in order for mathematical theories to be true their logical structure must refer to some mathematical entities, that many mathematical theories are indeed objectively true, and that mathematical entities are not constituents of the spatio-temporal realm."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

...is not complicated.

It means that the definition I was using was slightly wrong (as I was under the impression that mathematical realism did not actually say that there was a magical dimension where "pure triangles" frolicked wild and free, but was rather, y'know, sane), yes. But it also means that the response is very, very simple:

It's wrong.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well, no. It's really not.

This:



...is not complicated.

It means that the definition I was using was slightly wrong (as I was under the impression that mathematical realism did not actually say that there was a magical dimension where "pure triangles" frolicked wild and free, but was rather, y'know, sane), yes. But it also means that the response is very, very simple:

It's wrong.

Ok, Nonparaeil. You're right and everyone else is wrong. That seems to be the m.o. for this forum.

 

[PixyMisa]

For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality

Imagination is a physical process. What's your problem, exactly?

 

[marplots]

For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality

Imagination is a physical process.

Not "imagination" the "imaginary."

What's your problem, exactly?

My problem seems to be communicating what I think are reasonable points in a discussion where dismissing other viewpoints is de rigueur. I need to revisit my skeptic-dogma textbook.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronshadmi is convinced that .999999... is not equal to 1,

Look Nonpareil,

This is the second or third time that you try to hijack this thread by writing about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277.

You are invited to air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277 in the right thread.

I will not reply to you about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277 in this thread, FULL STOP.

... he claimed that he was a neutral monist, but claimed that neutral monism held that both materialism and idealism are true; this is wrong on all three counts, as all of those philosophies are mutually exclusive by definition.

My natural monist model of Unity (where Unity is not one_of_many thing by this model) does not use Nonpareil's view, which according to it, he actually counts three schools of thought that can't be but mutually exclusive, exactly because he uses multiplicity reasoning, such that each school of thought (Neutral monism, Materialism, Idealism) is one_of_many thing that excludes the other two schools of thoughts.

His multiplicity reasoning has nothing to do with the Neutral monist model of Unity, which according to it Materialism or Idealism are some multiple expressions that are derived from a common substance (Unity, which is not one_of_many thing as its expressions are) but not vice versa, as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 (but surly can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning, and this is exactly the case of, for example, Nonpareil and Belz...).

 

[doronshadmi]

This is your standard hand-waving response,

The hand-waving response is actually your style in the considered subject, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

Moreover, your multiplicity reasoning simply can't comprehend Neutral monism model of Unity (which is not one_of_many thing) as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

 

[Nonpareil]

Ok, Nonparaeil. You're right and everyone else is wrong. That seems to be the m.o. for this forum.

There's nothing else to be said.

The idea isn't even coherent, let alone supported by any sort of evidence. It's the same issue that idealism and neutral monism have. They are defined only in the loosest sense, and that definition collapses the minute you begin to look deeper. What exactly is this "higher plane" where mathematical entities, void somehow of all other characteristics other than the fact that they are mathematical entities, exist? How do we interact with it? How does it impose itself upon our world?

You don't just get to wave a hand and say "magic", then complain when someone dismisses your idea. If you support mathematical realism, then give us a reason to consider it.

My problem seems to be communicating what I think are reasonable points in a discussion where dismissing other viewpoints is de rigueur. I need to revisit my skeptic-dogma textbook.

Since both you and Fudbucker have said this, I should probably point out that the only things being outright dismissed here are those that have no evidence to support them, or even any sort of coherent definition.

I will not reply to you about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277 in this thread, FULL STOP.

I didn't ask you to. I'm giving context for people who have not read the other thread.

My natural monist

Neutral.

model of Unity (where Unity is not one_of_many thing by this model)

You don't have a model, you can't define "Unity", and "one_of_many thing" is a nonsense phrase.

does not use Nonpareil's view, which according to it, he actually counts three schools of thought that can't be but mutually exclusive, exactly because he uses multiplicity reasoning, such that each school of thought (Neutral monism, Materialism, Idealism) is one_of_many thing that excludes the other two schools of thoughts.

Once again, "my view" is literally just the definition.

You don't understand what those words mean.

His multiplicity reasoning has nothing to do with the Neutral monist model of Unity, which according to it Materialism or Idealism are some multiple expressions that are derived from a common substance (Unity, which is not one_of_many thing as its expressions are) but not vice versa, as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 (but surly can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning, and this is exactly the case of, for example, Nonpareil and Belz...).

At no point do you explain the difference between unity and multiplicity reasoning. At no point do you give us any reason to even believe that there is a coherent difference, other than that unity reasoning magically says whatever you want it to say and is superior in all respects to multiplicity reasoning.

And you still can't get around the fact that materialism and idealism are, by definition, mutually exclusive, and neutral monism necessarily posits that they are both false.

 

[doronshadmi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMaBQDXOkk

You are actually out right from here:

You're going to have to speak like I'm in 4th grade - that web page makes no sense.

Any way, lets address the traditional 0/1 excluded-middle reasoning, as follows:

         p = 0    0  1 1

         q = 0    1  0 1
         ---------------


                      /0  Contradiction
                    /0
                   /  \1  p AND q
                 /0
                /  \  /0  p not implies q
               /    \1
              /       \1  p
            /0
           /  \       /0  q not implies p
          /    \    /0
         /      \  /  \1  q
        /        \1
       /           \  /0  p XOR q
      /             \1
     /                \1  p OR q
Unity
     \                /0  p NOR q
      \             /0
       \           /  \1  p NXOR q
        \        /0
         \      /  \  /0  NOT q
          \    /    \1
           \  /       \1  q implies p
            \1
              \       /0  NOT p
               \    /0
                \  /  \1  p implies q
                 \1
                   \  /0  p NAND q
                    \1
                      \1  Tautology

As can be seen Unity is the substance of the 16 logical connectives between the 2 propositions p and q, which is not bounded by p,q or anyone of the 16 logical connectives.

We can use 0/1 tree in order to demonstrate Unity as the substance of Materialism and Idealism, for example:

      Idealism    = 0   
                        
      Materialism = 1   
                        
                        
                        
                      /0
                    /0  
                   /  \1
                 /0     
                /  \  /0
               /    \1  
              /       \1
            /0          
           /  \       /0
          /    \    /0  
         /      \  /  \1
        /        \1     
       /           \  /0
      /             \1  
     /                \1
Unity                   
     \                /0
      \             /0  
       \           /  \1
        \        /0     
         \      /  \  /0
          \    /    \1  
           \  /       \1
            \1          
              \       /0
               \    /0  
                \  /  \1
                 \1     
                   \  /0
                    \1  
                      \1

As can be seen by this simple Neutral monist model of Unity, multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, simply because Unity is (by its very own nature) not the sum of many things.

More information is found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm giving context for people who have not read the other thread.

First you have to explicitly demonstrate that you understand the given context (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277) something that you fail to do.

Neutral.

Thank you.

At no point do you explain the difference between unity and multiplicity reasoning. At no point do you give us any reason to even believe that there is a coherent difference, other than that unity reasoning magically says whatever you want it to say and is superior in all respects to multiplicity reasoning.

And you still can't get around the fact that materialism and idealism are, by definition, mutually exclusive, and neutral monism necessarily posits that they are both false.

At no point you demonstrated that you comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377742&postcount=585 exactly because your notions are derived only from the boundedness of multiplicity.