Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Robin]

As I recall you conflated a mathematical numerical infinity with dimensional particles in an infinite timespace.

Why is that conflating?

If there were three particles then the mathematical numerical 3 would describe the number of particles. If there were 100 particles then the mathematical numerical 100 would describe the number of particles. If there are infinitely many particles then the mathematical infinity would describe that too.

You then claimed that because mathematically you could have two infinities in the set of natural numbers, one of odd and one of even numbers. That there could not be every combination of particles.

Is that really what you thought he said? Is it possible that after all this time you still didn't understand, even though this misconception has been explained to you so many times?

He didn't say there could not be every combination.

He said that there would not necessarily be every combination.

I don't get what you don't get about that.

 

[punshhh]

You have a troll in your menagerie?

I'm trying to keep the concept of Dafydd out of my collection of concepts

 

[Robin]

Also I did construct the concept precisely so there were only one kind of particle, there is no even or odd division between them.

But you failed to explain why you thought that there would be every combination

 

[punshhh]

And how would you tell the difference between a butterfly dream , godthought or dancing energy?

I should not have to explain the process of mystical contemplation to you I suspect.
or have your teachers failed you

It is an attempt to see the wood for the trees.

In this analogy the trees are existence as it appears to be.
The wood is the true nature of existence.

Now the trees must consist of wood, but do not have the appearance of wood, but rather the appearance of trees.

Therefore in a contemplation on the trees intuition might inspire a notion of the nature of the wood of which the trees are constituted.

Through a regular discipline the thinker begins to discern the nature of wood and then has two things to contemplate, wood and trees and can begin to consider his/her own position in relation to these two facets of the same thing(infact its three wood, trees and him/herself).

 

[Mashuna]

As I recall you conflated a mathematical numerical infinity with dimensional particles in an infinite timespace.

You then claimed that because mathematically you could have two infinities in the set of natural numbers, one of odd and one of even numbers. That there could not be every combination of particles.

Now I could not see how you arrived at this conclusion, surely you are referring to categorising the combinations into different sets of combinations. Which doesn't affect the total set of combinations.

Also I did construct the concept precisely so there were only one kind of particle, there is no even or odd division between them.

As Robin explains, you have misunderstood my fairly simple point. I'm not sure if this is because it's a trickier point than I originally thought, because I explained it badly or because accepting the point would have wider ramifications for your personal belief system.

 

[punshhh]

Why is that conflating?

The conflation is to assume that the fact of different subsets in an endless progression of numbers, being separate infinite sets which don't overlap.
Can be applied to an endless set of identical particles. It can't, it can only be applied to a categorisation of the combinations of the particles.

In my model I am refering only to the total set of combinations, not the subsets of differing kinds of combinations.
This is like referring to the set of all possible numbers, the fact of there being odd and even ones is not the issue.

If there were three particles then the mathematical numerical 3 would describe the number of particles. If there were 100 particles then the mathematical numerical 100 would describe the number of particles. If there are infinitely many particles then the mathematical infinity would describe that too.

Yes, but they are identical, not odd and even or any other category.

Is that really what you thought he said? Is it possible that after all this time you still didn't understand, even though this misconception has been explained to you so many times?

I do understand it, I disagree.

He didn't say there could not be every combination.

He said that there would not necessarily be every combination.

I don't get what you don't get about that.

You've hit the nail on the head.I am saying that;

If there is the possibility of every combination(ie it is not impossible), it must necessarily exist(in the model).

You are saying that some of these possible combinations might not(necessarily) exist, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please explain why some combinations might not exist if they are possible?

 

[dafydd]

Proof for what?

Not in principle, we may not have revealed all the entities which exist as yet.

The entities.

 

[dafydd]

I'm trying to keep the concept of Dafydd out of my collection of concepts

You do not like awkward questions that intrude into your fantasies.

 

[dafydd]

Woos!


Troll

What does the phrase 'beyond the event horizon of the formless' mean? That sounds like woo to me.

 

[dafydd]

You don't know what is in my menagerie.

Again a troll.

No. Look up the definition of an internet troll. Do you always call people who ask you to explain yourself in understandable English trolls?

 

[dafydd]

The conflation is to assume that the fact of different subsets in an endless progression of numbers, being separate infinite sets which don't overlap.
Can be applied to an endless set of identical particles. It can't, it can only be applied to a categorisation of the combinations of the particles.

In my model I am refering only to the total set of combinations, not the subsets of differing kinds of combinations.
This is like referring to the set of all possible numbers, the fact of there being odd and even ones is not the issue.

Yes, but they are identical, not odd and even or any other category.

I do understand it, I disagree.

You've hit the nail on the head.I am saying that;

If there is the possibility of every combination(ie it is not impossible), it must necessarily exist(in the model).

You are saying that some of these possible combinations might not(necessarily) exist, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please explain why some combinations might not exist if they are possible?

Read Cantor. We have been through this before.

 

[catsmate]

You do not like awkward questions that intrude into your fantasies.

It's a common problem with believers. No matter what they believe in intrusions of reality are unwelcome.

 

[Robin]

I do understand it, I disagree.

So why did you characterise him saying that "there could not be every combination" if you understood, as you now claim, he was not saying that?

 

[Robin]

If there is the possibility of every combination(ie it is not impossible), it must necessarily exist(in the model).

You are saying that some of these possible combinations might not(necessarily) exist, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please explain why some combinations might not exist if they are possible?

So how about, just for a change, you stop shifting the burden of proof and tell me why you believe that every combination will occur.

 

[Dancing David]

I should not have to explain the process of mystical contemplation to you I suspect.
or have your teachers failed you

It is an attempt to see the wood for the trees.

In this analogy the trees are existence as it appears to be.
The wood is the true nature of existence.

Now the trees must consist of wood, but do not have the appearance of wood, but rather the appearance of trees.

Therefore in a contemplation on the trees intuition might inspire a notion of the nature of the wood of which the trees are constituted.

Through a regular discipline the thinker begins to discern the nature of wood and then has two things to contemplate, wood and trees and can begin to consider his/her own position in relation to these two facets of the same thing(infact its three wood, trees and him/herself).

Nice response, still doesn't answer the question.

The effects are the same it could be dancing energy, godthought, butterfly dream or BIV.
So back to the nature of thoughts, they will be the same in all four ontologies.

You can not distinguish them

 

[Robin]

So how about, just for a change, you stop shifting the burden of proof and tell me why you believe that every combination will occur.

Because it is interesting, isn't it, that there is this thing that you are incorrigibly convinced is true and yet you do not have the slightest notion of why you believe it is true.

And that is probably the best definition of mysticism yet.

 

[Dancing David]

Um this is where the usage of the words break down
-dancing energy
-godthought
-brains in vats
-butterfly dreams

There is no way to distinguish them ontologically. Moot, mu.

Punsssh,

Perhaps you should consider what this means.

I said that materialism and idealism are equivalent constructs, they are the same. There is no way to tell the difference.

 

[dafydd]

So how about, just for a change, you stop shifting the burden of proof and tell me why you believe that every combination will occur.

He believes is because it is mystical.

 

[dafydd]

Because it is interesting, isn't it, that there is this thing that you are incorrigibly convinced is true and yet you do not have the slightest notion of why you believe it is true.

And that is probably the best definition of mysticism yet.

Well said.

 

[punshhh]

It's a common problem with believers. No matter what they believe in intrusions of reality are unwelcome.

I presume this also applies to believers in materialism.
I don't believe by the way.