/lit/ - Literature

>>14042877
Unless real is given as a label for this empirical plane. Whether or not it is fundamental is irrelevant, as our logical frameworks are incapable of working with fundamentals without resorting to hidden variables. Existential semantics are good for pondering why particles spin from an empirical perspective, but not necessarily for constructive dialogue.

>>14042931
>The assumption of mono directional causality is predicated on there being some infinitely thin periodicity
This premise is wrong from the start. Spacetime is not deterministically capable of infinitely thin anything, other than gravitational singularities (and even this is more complicated than that.)

>it is impossible to ever conclude that it is the interaction of smaller particles governing the behaviour of the wholes vs the wholes governing the behaviour of the smaller particles.
However whether our perception of causality is reversed or not is irrelevant. So long as the set of all things is parallel between two systems of entropy, they are the same set. Objective origin is a meaningless qualifier, as either terminal of interaction being identified as the origin does not practically change anything. It's a dialectical standard that our discussions follow our perception of time where causality is concerned for the utilitarian purpose of simplicity's sake.

In fact, whether or not wholes outside of the set of all things, or conventionalist definitions, is highly debateable. Whether or not a whole is identified relies on conventionalist definition of that whole. An observer who is wholly ignorant of computers will not be able to identify the network whole of two computers wirelessly connected.
The stipulation for this is two-fold:
1. The conventionalist concept of "computer network" is passed on to the mind
2. The mind holds the ability to naturally observe atomized phenomenon, and identifies the mutual transmission of radiation between the computers.

This second stipulation is an important one. Through sufficient knowledge of elementary components, the concept of whole can be reached.

This is how we train AI to understand wholes, like dogs, houses, faces, etc. With given data atomized as much as possible, patterns within the data can become defined as wholes, and wholes can then be identified. However deviations that haven't been trained for in this pattern creates misidentification. The conventionalist definition doesn't cover the deviations, and the lack of complete atomization means that the whole does not truthfully exist. In ideal conditions, the whole can always be considered and arrived to. With wholes relying on perspective, and elementary components relying on observation, the objective advantage of parts lies in the fact that the higher can always be defined from the lower, but not necessarily vice versa according to the perception of time arrows. The same perception required to give meaning to wholes in absence of elementary knowledge.