/lit/ - Literature

>>18306945
The discontinuity of consciousness as opposed to the fundamental continuity of physical matter is a potential reason.

Google Open Individualism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9unZn75Moo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhoqz4PEtkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP3dCVhOnzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrGoOlPepC8

>>18306960
interesting, care to elaborate on that?

>>18306945
The destruction of the authority of reason leads you directly back into intuitive metaphysics.

>>18306984
not that anon but given the fact that physical matter can't be destroyed, but can only change form, wouldn't it be logical for consciousness to follow the same principle?

>>18306994
(for example, see Nietzsche, Buddha, Stirner, etc.)

>>18306994
there's no such thing as "intuitive metaphysics", that's in fact an oxymoron, metaphysics is by definition the articulation of reason beyond the immediacy of intuitions, things like the self or being can only be thought not intuited

>>18307021
maybe but if we follow cartesian philosophy we can said matter and mind are different substances with different rules of being

>>18306984
Not much else to say, the fact that our awareness is limited, cut off from. Its surrounding makes it a singular entity in a way physical objects aren't.

>>18307026
Metaphysics was created by Aristotle, it was condensed by a translator from the full title which was “metaphorical physics“. Metaphysics is best left to the poets.

>>18306945
Hume was the conclusion of philosophy. Kant was merely Hume with a label gun and the creation of an impossible category (noumena). Hegel pointed out it was an impossible category (You can’t investigate an instrument of knowledge with that very same instrument), while doing basically that. Wittgenstein put the cherry on top by building on Hegel‘s paradoxicalmess by proving that you can’t prove things.

Hume put metaphysics to bed. Let it sleep.

>>18307026
>metaphysics is by definition
Wrong.

>>18307078
A spectre is still haunting /lit/

there is no self. only qualia

I swear no one actually takes the time to actually look up what metaphysics fucking is.

Metaphysics literally just refers to abstractions, like the number THREE. You don't seriously think the number THREE doesn't "exist," do you?

>>18307056
>Metaphysics is best left to the poets

I'm going to become a dictator so I can personally throw people like you into the fucking gulag for perpetuating the LIE that metaphysics has anything to do with poetry. And not that there's anything wrong with poetry, but it's just different. If you want to understand metaphysics, study logic, study math.

>>18306960
>>18307039

You're a fucking moron.

>>18307029
I'm more of a monoist myself

>>18307078
Hume was the conclusion of intelligence, not philosophy.

>>18307105
>You don't seriously think the number THREE doesn't "exist," do you?
It doesn't, like you said yourself it is an abstraction.

>>18307105
>Metaphysics literally just refers to abstractions
Wrong.

>>18307056
no, it was created by Parmenides, formalized by Aristotle and given a name by Andronicus of Rhodes

>>18307078

Metaphysics is just Abstraction.
Metaphysics is just Abstraction.
Metaphysics is just Abstraction.
Metaphysics is just Abstraction.
Metaphysics is just Abstraction.

There's nothing "mystical" or "supernatural" about metaphysics. It's not special. Have you ever counted marbles, and then counted oranges, and then counted chairs and realized, "Huh, even do dey are diffuwunt objets dey ah all duh sam numbuh!!" Then congratulations, YOU JUST DID METAPHYSICS!!!!! WOWWWW!!!!! SO SPECIAL!!!

>>18307105
What do you specifically disagree with about what I said about consciousness being discontinuous and physical matter being discontinuous

>>18307102
good point

>>18307126
It seems practically impossible that anyone likes you of you regularly act like this

>>18307121
>>18307116

I just wanted to let you know personally that you're not smart. Metaphysics has been around for thousands of years and all you needed to do was read what Aristotle actually wrote and realize you're a fucking idiot and I'm right. Instead you and all the other morons did what morons do and instead of going to the fucking library and opening up a fucking book you just *invented* your own meaning for the term which you though sounded like "magic" or something close to it and now we are all forced to hear your stupid opinions about a fake definition for years on end in every thread over and over and over again. What a joy it is.

>>18307132

Where do you think we are? Are you lost?

>>18307140
We're on 4chan, a place notorious for unpleasant behavior, in which you nonetheless manage to be so strikingly obnoxious that it's somewhat jarring.

>>18307135
Someone defending Aristotle's Metaphysics complaining about faulty definitions lol

>>18307135
I've read Aristotle. It's just that those statements you made previously are obviously false.

Few realize just how perspicacious Hume was. He “awoke, from his dogmatic slumber“ by showing that perceptions are created by the mind. Identity, causation, self, they are all creations of the mind mediating sensory data. Few realize the implication of that, without that mediation there are no objects, there is only existence. You, abstract relations viz counting, is all an illusion created by the virtual reality of the mind. Metaphysics is dead and Hume killed it.

>>18307189

You literally can't stop me from counting. Lmfao what are you talking about dude? Are you high? Listen to yourself. "Hume killed metaphysics" "counting is an illusion"

Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound? You're a total and complete fraud.

>>18307189
Guenonfags and Advaitafags BTFO

>>18307189
Except that such a chain of logic attacking logic requires logic. It is always self-defeating to use a tool to attack itself.

Hume was revolutionary because he touched on the arbitrary nature of association of ideas. The web could theoretically be permissively reconfigured and the patterns it finds are never present in the reality to which the associations refer, including deep patterns taken for granted like causality.

>>18307105
>>18307126

This is bullshit trying to gain legitimacy for metaphysics by comparing it to math. Math is deductive and rigorous and acknowledges the unprovable nature of it's axioms. Metaphysics does none of this. Math is valued for the empirically verifiable effects it can have on the world through applications in physics and engineering. Metaphysics can't do shit.

People unironically I think with is chump is going to single-handedly save metaphysics

>>18307208

Math is literally metaphysics. You've been lied to your whole life.

>>18307216
If math is metaphysics then you acknowledge that metaphysics has arbitrary axioms at it's foundation. There is loads of math with no connection to reality.

>>18307222

There's no such thing as having "no connection to reality" you cannot rearrange elements of reality to refer to something not in it

>>18307222
No connection yet. It is downright disturbing how theoretical branches of pure math are later applied to real problems

>>18307222

Metaphysics is reality. Math is real. Abstraction is real. Your insistence on denying the existence of existence is holding you back.

They all mooched off ancient skeptics. There is nothing in Descartes, Kant and Hume that you couldn't find in this book

>>18307206
You’re referring to to the difference between valid and sound. This is what made Hume a cognitive scientist, he operated within the material world from a reasonable stance of skepticism. He clearly established correspondence as the determination of soundness. Karl popper later tried to apply correspondence epistemology to math with dubious success.

>>18307231
>Metaphysics is reality. Math is real. Abstraction is real.
Prove it.

>>18306945
Do you move from without like inanimate objects? I think not, therefore you must have a soul and it must be eternal.

>>18307231
Go home Plato you’re drunk

>>18307226
>>18307231
Inaccessible cardinals are real? What about infinite dimensional function spaces? So any axiom I come with and whatever I deduce from it is real?

>>18307251
Non-foundational set theory? Infinite graphs? Oracle machines in computer science? All real?

>>18307206
>Except that such a chain of logic attacking logic requires logic. It is always self-defeating to use a tool to attack itself. -Hegel

>That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent -Wittgenstein

>>18306945

Europeans were playing in the fucking mud before the romans taught them how to think- they were too stupid to understand the simplicity of the greek model of reality and bungled it with their over complicated pretentious incoherent infinitely skeptical pseudo-rationalism. We still "doubt" empirical models of reality TO DATE. Metaphysics IS empirical. Abstraction IS empirical.

>>18307251

Are you not referring to it? Do you need me to wipe your ass too?

>>18307250

I don't like plato.

>>18307243

More insane neurotic anglo matriarchal skepticism. Do you KNOW what a number IS? Do you think the number THREE is the *symbol* 3?

>>18307259
>>18307251

You're working yourself into a frenzy because you need reality to be more complicated than it really is. Why not just be catholic instead? Why shit up philosophy?

>>18307266
Do you think Romans weren't European

>>18307266
So whatever I refer to is real? Unicorns? Santa Claus? Pokemon? This is referred to as Meinong's jungle in metaphysics and is generally laughed at

>>18307215
The only value in hegel Aside from poetry is reconciling the deterministic universe with the apparently volitional Geist.

His love of god was fucking gay

>>18307260
Is the wittgenstein a logical determination?

>>18307268
That is what I was saying from the beginning I have no reason to believe that any of those things is real and math does not insist that they are are real either. Just that they follow from the arbitrarily chosen axioms. If metaphysics wants to claim legitimacy by pretending to have the same rigor as math it has to accept the fundamental arbitrariness at the foundations of math.

>>18307206
>Hume was revolutionary because he touched on the arbitrary nature of association of ideas
I'd call it folly of intuition - when empiricism creeps into the abstract. Arbitrary associations don't really happen in formal logic (fe. causality and retro-causality both occupy the same rank).

>>18307266
Then stop quoting his intelligible realm

>>18307284
Metaphysics is self-referential and therefore unlike math, which poses axioms understood by higher processes of logic

>>18307296
Self-referential lol? You mean circular reasoning. Math knows it depends on axioms and can't claim to represent reality without empirical verification.

>>18307278
It is as much as It can be. He tries to distinguish between proof (sense) and poetic indication... but at the end of the day he’s trying to prove that you can’t prove things. This leads to an infinite reduction of “you can’t say that“, which leads to a meta-infinite reduction of you can’t say THAT” etc.

>>18307296
Any attempt of reason to understand reason is self-referential. That doesn't really mean anything. Either be specific (like Godel), or stop spouting obvious non-sequiturs.

>>18307292
I don't know the terms you're using but you can associate one thing with anything else, the web of associations is arbitrarily malleable

>>18307198
That’s not a response. You clearly read Hume with a dictionary.

>>18307296
>>18307284

Mathematical axioms are derived from observation, observation of the metaphysical nature of reality. You observe abstraction when you learn to count. You observe logic when you see that men are not women and women are not men. You observe abstraction. You are not taught abstraction. It isn't made up.

>>18307292
A->B is an arbitrary association.

>>18307319
So metaphysics depends on observation of the real world? Isn't that just physics?

>>18307306
It matters very much. Math exists on a logical level, logic taken for granted, and an applied level, empirical data taken for granted. Metaphysics takes nothing for granted, it inspects itself

>>18307323

And? What do you think arbitrary means? What you're saying is indistinguishable from "logic is abstract." Yes, and?

>>18307319
Everything you just mentioned are created by the augmented reality neurons (a priori). Testing cannot prove that the map is the terrain

>>18307327
>Metaphysics takes nothing for granted, it inspects itself

So it's groundless and made up like he's been saying from the beginning

>>18307329
A->B, and arbitrary relation, appears in formal logic, contradicting your post.

>>18307326

Have you ever met a physicist? Do you actually know any physicist that can think EITHER abstractly OR empirically? Literally every "physicist" I know is as idiotic as a bible thumping jesus freak except their bible is their calculus textbook. They're just as literal and narrow minded as your typical hasidic jew.

>>18307333
Yes in a sense it is totally groundless unless you believe in one of its self-justifications. My point was that it's not like math because math depends on givens it doesn't justify itself.

>>18307326
Yes he doesn’t understand that it’s impossible to say there’s anything provable beyond physics

>>18307327
>Metaphysics takes nothing for granted, it inspects itself
That's a bold claim I hear often, but I've still yet to see a proof that metaphysics can stand as self-referential, yet sound.

Math openly admits that it's soundness is incomplete (and simply pads that with empiricism). It's necessary evil of relying on axioms obvious enough.

And here runs in metaphysics autist WAAAAAAAAIT. you mathfags are WRONG. METAPHYSICS IS ALL-POWERFUL, WE CAN GET RID OF YOUR UNSOUNDNESS. By, uh, durrr, ignoring Godel and any semblance of rigor.

>>18307338
What does that have to do with what I asked? Does metaphysics depend on observations of the real world? The common answer is no but you seem to think otherwise.

i have vivid albeit bizarre dreams that point me toward reincarnation. wouldnt consider myself otherwise spiritual but you wont find an answer to your question looking anywhere else but in

>>18307341
So what is the difference between something groundless with self-justifications and something totally made up?

>>18307345
The only ground for metaphysics has to be supra-logical imo. That is why hegel is basically doomed. Unless you appeal to something like God that determines logic itself and is beyond the logic of logic as it were you're trapped in a vicious cycle.

>>18307338
Physicists far surprisingly narrow minded. They also tend to have an antagonism towards philosophy, missing out on his mind expanding properties, because all they know about it is SJW‘s use it to condemn their Whiteness adjacency

>>18307350
>does metaphysics depend on observations of the real world

No, metaphysics IS the real world. The world IS metaphysical. You live IN a metaphysical world. There is no "physical" world. The world is what you see AND the relations between the things you see. That IS metaphysics. You can't escape it unless you have severe right hemisphere brain damage and literally can't see the relationship between things.

>>18307345

Godel is an irrelevant neurotic. You are worshiping uncertainty. Reality is not that complicated.

>>18307361
Internal coherence

>>18307215
I don't think anyone does. Hegel's metaphysics is the most shaky part of his entire system, unfortunately it is also what he believed grounded his entire system. There are still people who believe Hegel's philosophy is useful for its non-metaphysical theories, and that they are somehow valid without the metaphysical foundation. I don't really know anyone who can properly defend Hegel's system against the usual skepticism. And if you're going to go the route of non-skepticism, then what is really the concrete difference of picking scholastic Christian metaphysics over Hegel? There is none. Hegelian metaphysics and its resultant philosophical religion is just another plain, old religion with its dogmas.

>>18307367
>absolute idealist

He never does articulate what the absolute idea-existence-mind that we all exist in is. At least Spinoza was clear that he was full of shit, hegel makes you wait until you get all the way through

>>18307372
So there you go. I don't see the relations between things that Aristotle claims. He made them up. His metaphysics was wrong. And my metaphysics which is just modern physics is empirically verified

>>18307380
That’s called anti-realism and has nothing to do with reality

>>18307372
That’s idealism. But can’t prove or disprove the noumena, and therefore can’t conclude that all we know is the phenomena

>>18307384
We can only approach it in metaphor leaving it as an unknown x that somehow determines what we see. But kant went too far with his system, we can't know even that necessity, the unknown pervades the phenomenal world too . Hume was closer to the truth

>>18307380
Totally made up things can be logically coherent. Unicorns exist is internally logically coherent.

>>18307372
>That IS metaphysics.
How do you know that? How do you know it's not just another mirage you've just sperged up? How do you know the assumptions are correct, and worse still, how do you formally prove it with its own framework to the extent it becomes useful?

The beauty of Godel that he did prove this for math in self-consistent manner, within math. Yes it proves uncertainty, but it's a tight lower bound on where and when.

My issue with metaphysics is that it essentially tries to do the same for loose understanding of logic and set/category theories of a humanities major, but its own language for that is far from tight.

Math (including formal logic) has its platonic shapes pretty well defined that construct the whole system. Whereas metaphysics uses very broad categories for its shapes without much specifity. That's worse than uncertain - it's uncertain and loose, the lack of formal language renders the system useless to even have a shot for meaningful application.

>>18307406
Internal implies a specific space of thought. Unicorns are coherent within a certain sphere of imagination, not coherent within empirical mindset.

>>18307382
I Love him on a metaphorical level, genuine if not inadvertent psychological insight— an impressive and ultimately ironic look at the depths of bias from a Christian philosopher.

But it floors me how seriously he is taken by many grad students And PhD‘s. He was pre-Darwin and people act like his master- slave dynamic has anything to do with reality

>>18307412
This is just turning into gibberish. Did you mean internally coherent or not? If so what does empirical verification have to do with it? And if not why doesn't metaphysics need empirical verification?

>>18307384
>He never does articulate what the absolute idea-existence-mind that we all exist in is
That's because he states that he can't. That Absolute is an unfolding of history. History culminates in the Absolute.

>>18307417
They're different standards of logic and so require different systems of qualification

Metaphysics is not justified by empirical data, it has a different standard of justification

>>18307403
Wittgenstein tried to address that phenomenological uncertainty by saying the world and thought shared a logical form or sense. That seems intuitively true but also just seems like a rewording of Hume minus some of the necessary skepticism and somehow an addition of too much skepticism at other parts

>>18307222
>arbitrary axioms at it's foundation. There is loads of math with no connection to reality
Fucking kek, the mathematicians and analytics got to this a century ago. Not that anon but yes math is indeed metaphysics

>>18307423
So unicorns existing is an internally coherent statement. I asked what differentiates metaphysics from made up crap like unicorns. You said internal logical coherence. So you think unicorns exists

>>18307413
I like his spirit (not The Spirit) too. I feel like if I was in his position with his intellect at that time I'd be attempting to do the same thing, ground Kant/Fichte's new system in more than just perpetual epistemological nihilism without resorting to the old tropes of philosophy. I guess that's how he felt as well, because he wrote about people at certain stages of history being compelled by Spirit to accomplish certain feats.

>>18307428
And my whole point was that math is not necessarily believed to be real due to the axioms being arbitrary. You can call a lot of math made up and not offend any mathematician they will just nod and say yes it follows from the axioms we chose. Metaphysics wants to pretend that it's axioms aren't arbitrary and made up like the ones in math are.

>>18307428
I'd say "philosophy of math". Metaphysics is more like a superset, as its stated goal is to deal with any constructed system that's purely abstract, not just math.

>>18307419
Because apparently god‘s plan is rational. And a “rational” that somehow has more content than Kant but less than the Greeks. One wonders whether he would have come up with a genetic conception of rational were he alive a bit longer

>>18307430
Existence does not apply to all logically coherent systems

>>18307449
So again how do we know that metaphysics is real and unicorns aren't?>>18307361

>>18307432
One does get the sense he was searching for a mental soundness. Incremental increase in freedom of thought throughout history seems related. As if humanity is it crawling towards enlightenment. Psychologically, it translates to an internal locus of control and Kohlberg‘s moral stages. A definite precursor to the Ubermench. He just became overzealous with mixing politics physics and metaphysics into a unified idea. Beautiful tho if not occasionally insane

>>18307454
We don't know, it's only a dream presented to us by the fact we are aware at all

Is it even possible to convince a metaphysician that metaphysics doesn’t exist? Leave the dogmatists to the dogs

>>18307472
>Is reality real? Is water wet? Does existence exist?

>>18307480
Physics answers those. Metaphysics is made up

>and as the germ bears in itself the whole nature of the tree, and the taste and form of its fruits, so do the first traces of spirit virtually contain the whole of that history.

Metaphorically fecund. The Big Bang, a State of matter energy and the laws of physics, is the seed of the universe, containing every star planet human and our history. The universe’s grand plan unfolding with we apes typing this nonsense. Hmm.

>>18307489
>The universe’s grand plan
Oh, it's another Christian-in-denial.

>>18307372
Based, educating the plebs so we don't have to

>>18307498
Your projecting god onto the inanimate deterministic universe belies your petty existential insecurity. Cope.

>>18307487
>"the number 3 is made up"

You're an idiot.

>>18307515

Someone had to do it. I've never seen such deficient attempts at describing reality before. Half the time I'm arguing with someone here it's like they're post-op from a functional hemisphrectomy.

>>18307572
Again you're trying to use math to give legitimacy to metaphysics. The axioms of math are essentially arbitrary but are verified empirically when used in physics. You can't admit that metaphysics axioms are arbitrary or that metaphysics needs to be empirically verified

>>18307582
>trying to use math to give legitimacy to metaphysics

jesus christ you are so anachronistic it hurts reading your stupid shit.

>the axioms of math are essentially arbitrary but are verified empirically when used in physics

lmfao. what the fuck are you even trying to say? What does "essentially arbitrary" even mean? What do you think "arbitrary" means? Do you think about what the words you're using mean? Like, actually? Or do you think they have magical powers and you can just throw a word at me and I'll get spooked and roll over?

>you can't admit that metaphysics axioms are arbitrary or that metaphysics needs to be empirically verified

What do you think "verification" means? You keep waving it around like some kind of magic fucking wand like an idiot. And that last bit about empirically verifying metaphysics is tiresome. I've literally been saying this whole thread that abstraction comes from observation but lo and fucking behold you weren't paying attention so it went right over your fucking pea brain.

>>18307527
>implying "the universe's grand plan" isn't the most obvious intellectual projection ever written
You've literally just swapped one word starting with a 'g' for one with a 'u'

>>18307602
Arbitrary as in I can arbitrarily state that unicorns exist as an axiom. Verification would be finding a fucking unicorn. Metaphysics is arbitrarily making shit up or in your words >abstraction comes from observation

>>18307602
Or lets give you a choice is metaphysics deductive, inductive, or neither? Deduction uses arbitrary axioms as a ground. Induction relies on empirical reality and verification. What type of reasoning does metaphysics use?

>>18307617

You can't think abstractly, can you? You don't actually understand what numbers or analogies are? You actually think the number three is the symbol '3', don't you? You probably think that if it's not the letter 'x' than it isn't a variable right?

What you're saying isn't physics- it's literalism, which has nothing to do with physics. You can't see past the letters of a text. If I showed you a giant mass of 8's in the shape of the letter 'S' you would tell me it's a bunch of 8s.

>>18307636
All I see is you dodging a bunch. Is metaphysics deductive or inductive? If it is deductive what are the unprovable axioms it starts with and if it is inductive why doesn't it have to be verified against physical reality like physics?

>>18307641

You keep trying to tease things apart and then once they're all separated in your hands and you can't make sense of them you throw them at me like I'm supposed to fix your nasty little habit of disassembling everything and then wondering why it's broken.

>>18307651
More dodging. Metaphysics is made up and pathetic pleading from what you feel emotionally is true

>>18307665
>Metaphysics is made up and pathetic pleading from what you feel emotionally is true
And that's a good thing.

>>18307641

No one "verifies" physics just like you're not constantly "verifying" your own perception. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist.

>>18307665

Now you're projecting. I'm not a romantic. I don't care about feelings. You're way more tormented about this than I am. Listen to yourself. If anything I am a realist. My argument the entire time has literally been that reality contains the things we observe, we observe abstraction thus it contains abstraction. I also stated that things we imagine have existence which is trivial but you had a melt down and started talking about santa claus like he didn't exist or something despite that you insist on summoning him into all of our imaginations. Well, maybe not yours. Maybe that's why you're so upset. Lmao. Sucks to suck.

>>18307674
Except if you're trying to get someone else to believe in it. I don't care if you have some fantasy in your mind and that is what metaphysics is.

>>18307690

Everything is in the mind you dolt.

>>18307683
So give me some of these things you claim to observe. Someone mentioned Aristotle above so I'll go with his four causes. I don't observe the three besides the efficient cause. How can you say I'm wrong? If fact I observe another cause that Aristotle doesn't have. The unicorn cause. How can you say I'm wrong with deductive or inductive reasoning. The way you're using observation is the same as making things up.

>>18307702

I've literally used COUNTING as an example over and over and over and over again but you refuse to see numbers as abstract so I don't know what to fucking tell you buddy.

>>18307696
So you believe everything I have in my mind is real? Unicorns? Santa Claus? Pokemon?

>>18306945
You have no idea what "transcendental" means, right?

>>18307704
And I have explained over and over that math and counting depends on arbitrary axioms(peano axioms in the case of the natural numbers) that are verified by physics(the experiment of counting the same group of objects twice and getting the same result).

>>18307706

What isn't real about Santa Claus?

>>18307714
I also have in my mind the idea that God doesn't exist. So I guess theists BTFO right?

>>18307716

I mean, you can think that but it's stupid because you're inevitably just going to replace yourself with space you made by removing "god" from your model of reality. The placeholder is still there.

>>18307713

counting has nothing to do with peano or physics. don't be fucking stupid. toddlers don't know physics OR first order logic. you're being totally anachronistic.

>>18307716

Saying god doesn't exist is like using using an underscore instead of the number zero. Like okay wow good job you used a different symbol. The hole is still there.

>>18307105
>Metaphysics literally just refers to abstractions
Metaphysics is the study of being qua being.

>>18307730
>I mean, you can think that but it's stupid because you're inevitably just going to replace yourself with space you made by removing "god" from your model of reality. The placeholder is still there.
Blah blah. So I have if my mind the idea of a God that hates religious people and will burn them in hell. Religious people BTFO

>counting has nothing to do with peano or physics. don't be fucking stupid. toddlers don't know physics OR first order logic. you're being totally anachronistic.
So metaphysics depends on the intuitions of toddlers? And you think this helps your position? Small babies don't even have object permanence do you think things don't exist when you don't look at them?

>>18307736
I have in my mind the idea that God is a unicorn. Theists must believe in unicorns then right?

>>18307743
This filters the brainlet

>>18307730
Shit most toddlers can't count past 10. You do believe 11 exists right?

>>18307768
That is made up like unicorns

>>18307743
>So I have if my mind the idea of a God that hates religious people and will burn them in hell. Religious people BTFO

Yes, no one is stopping you from thinking that. Are you asking my permission? What are you asking me.

>So metaphysics depends on the intuitions of toddlers?

Yes. How did you get here? Were you not once a toddler? Where do you think your ideas came from? You are such a monday morning quarterbacker. You read peano in Logic II and think suddenly toddlers are *actually* using HIS axioms when they're learning to count because what else would they be using??? Such a stupid way to think about things.

>Small babies don't even have object permanence do you think things don't exist when you don't look at them?

They don't. What kind of stupid question is that? Also not consistent with your whole "verification" crusade since sight is one of the five senses and any decent construct validation model would require it. If you can't see it how do you know it exists? Toddlers are smarter than you.

>>18307769
Yes.

>>18307754
I haven't counted to 11 in a while I'll have to verify it.

Anymore stupid questions?

>>18307779
>Yes, no one is stopping you from thinking that. Are you asking my permission? What are you asking me.
See >>18307696 where he claims everything is in the mind.
>>do you think things don't exist when you don't look at them?
>They don't
I'm getting tired of talking about this. If you want to live in subjective fantasy land don't get mad when someone calls metaphysics made up

>>18307799
>I'm getting tired of talking about this

Being wrong must be exhausting. Sorry to hear about that.

bump

>>18306945

>>18307029
That would answer OP's question. Hume staunchly opposed much of Descarte's philosophy, ive read two treatises by Hume which directly refers to Decsartes with pure poison.

>>18306945
eternity is now anon.

>>18306945
Self-consciousness should be taken seriously as an important datum certainly on the same level (not lower) as sense data, which Hume takes seriously. The self is not sensed, but we still know it. Were it not so, the "I" would not have its significance. The problem posed was recognized by Fichte and by several analytics, so this is something people from both traditions take seriously. It's impossible to reduce the "I" pronoun's meaning to anything else: they've proved as much. If you're interested go read Perry or Anscombe on the subject. What this means is that there is some unique kind of knowledge of our own selves available to us, not reducible to sensation (or anything else). If you don't take that datum seriously it's no better than not taking sense data seriously. Hume can't just pick and choose what data he takes seriously, it's sort of against the point of an honest empiricism that reckons with the data. Anyway, the reason we take the self to continue to exist unchanging is that if it changed, its identity would be injured over time. Obviously my memories might be false, but if I stop existing in a second, then everything should go dark. Seems like it doesn't. The "I" that I am right now doesn't stop existing the next second. If you like Hume, and read his Appendix to the Treatise of Human Nature, he actually starts to have genuine, honest second thoughts about the self. He confesses that he hasn't adequately accounted for it, and that maybe it really does exist. I think he should have pursued that thought further. So if even Hume had second thoughts in the end, you should too. It seems like he realized the self can't be ignored in the end.

>>18307222
Just because the axioms (of mathematics as well as metaphysics) are not provable doesn't mean they are arbitrary. Quite the contrary, they are chosen very carefully and the real meat of mathematical or metaphysical theories is exactly the choice of the axioms.

>>18307361
There is no qualitative difference but a quantitative one in as much as it's useful to other people.

>>18307367
But Hegel whole project is explicating this circle.

>>18307582
No, the axioms are not verified empirically through physics. Physics takes up mathematical theories wherin the axioms correspond approximately well enough to observations or mathematical theories build on axioms gained through approximating some observed phenomena.

>>18307702
What you don't get is that by claiming that something is the case, it doesn't just stop there. It has consequences which are traced in metaphysics.However, when you claim that unicorns exist, it has no real consequences, i.e. your metaphysics is of no relevance and nobody would bother arguing with you.

things have thingyness

>>18307078
But Wittgenstein also proved that Hume and empiricism in general was flawed with his private language argument

>>18307206
You CAN prove with logic that logic doesn't work. It would be like using a computer program that tells you if a program works on itself. If it says it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, because either it is right (meaning it doesn't work and it says it doesn't work) or it is wrong (it does work, but says it doesn't work) which means it does not work.

>>18307222
Name one thing that is possible to perceive that violates the law of geometry. You can't. They are a priori trancendental conditions for all experience.

>>18311737
There was a whole famous controversy in math in the 1800s about non-Euclidean geometry. Long story short Euclid's fifth axiom the parallel line axiom is not necessarily true and can be replaced by others. Lines on the surface of a sphere(like the earth) always intersect and are never parallel.

>>18307222

math is a branch of metaphysics. why do you think axioms are arbitrary? Do you want them to be arbitrary?

>>18312451
Because the axioms are arbitrary. I've said this over and over. Just look at the post directly above you >>18311763. You can not prove an axiom it's just something you make up because it's aesthetically pleasing or you think it might correspond with reality. But there is tons of math that no one would think has a real existence see >>18307251 >>18307259.

>>18310825

He is too obsessed with his own uncertainty to understand the extremely simple point I was trying to make- also nicely put.

>>18310688

Also well put, thank you.

>>18311711

What is the "flaw" in empiricism again?

>>18311730

People have a hard time "understanding" that logic is bivalent.

>>18311763

There is literally no such thing as "non-euclidean" geometry. ALL "non-euclidean" metrics are calculated using a euclidean metric. You can't escape euclidean space. You can calculate curved sub spaces of euclidean space but you can't go "outside" of it. Also something people have a hard time understanding.

>>18312470

You literally don't understand how non-euclidean metrics work and are a neurotic trying to promote your escapist vision. I see right fucking through you.

>>18312486
You have no clue what you're talking about but let's just accept what you've said about non-Euclidean geometry. That just proves my point the axioms of non-Euclidean geometry are arbitrary and have no real existence by your own statement

>>18312498

You are fucking dumb dude. What space do you think you're calculating your "non-euclidean" distances in? What metric are you using to calculate the metric? It's euclidean. You're fucking dumb. There is no geometric theory that uses non-euclidean calculations to get non-euclidean distances. Non euclidean space is literally just arc length. That's it. Read a fucking book some time.

>>18312498
>this just proves my point

You literally don't have a point. You are just another escapist who has never read aristotle, doesn't know what analogies are, and doesn't know how to calculate distances in non-Euclidean space.

>>18312508
So you're saying every metric space uses a euclidean metric? How fucking stupid can you get.

>>18312515
The point that you're dodging over and over is that axioms are arbitrary and not necessarily real. You yourself said non-Euclidean geometry isn't real but it logically follows from certain axioms.

>>18312518

You literally don't know what non-euclidean distances are, do you? Non-euclidean distances are literally just arc lengths. Guess what metric you're calculating the arc length in. A euclidean one. You're fucking dumb sit down.

>>18312508
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space#Examples_of_metric_spaces
Whole fucking list of metric spaces that don't use the Euclidean metric

absolute state of this board

>>18312531

See >>18312531. You're wrong and dumb. Non-Euclidean geometry has different fundamental axioms from Euclidean geometry even without all your metric shit

>>18312525

I didn't say non-euclidean geometry "isn't real" I said it's an escapist fantasy. Axioms also aren't "arbitrary" this is such a stupid idea. Where is the randomness in counting? Where is the randomness in the law of non-contradiction? Listen to yourself.

>>18312534

You're using wikipedia. You literally don't know how to calculate distance in a non-euclidean space. It's just arc length. That's it. Guess how you calculate the length of the arc? Guess which space you're calculating the arc length in? You're so fucking stupid dude. Stop googling shit and open a fucking book.

>>18312486
Empiricism inevitably argues the following, which is self contradictory.

1 - Properly sensing something is the same or as good as knowing it to be true in propositional form, ie, seeing that the apple is red is the same as or as good as knowing that the proposition "the apple is red" is true.

2 - The ability to sense is not acquired.

3 - The ability to use language, and the ability to say or think in propositional form is acquired.

These are obviously self-contradictory. A and B entail Not-C, B and C entail Not-A, A and C entail not-B.

Empiricism is flawed because it ends up believing in a pre-existing conceptual structure to experiences that is actually only provided by language. Experiences can only provide knowledge or rather be entered into a space of reason, by being validated by a conceptual and linguistic structure present in grammar and language itself. It believes sense data to be self-validating, but validation in propositional form must be decided upon by a linguistic and grammatical structure. Experiences do NOT have propositional form on their own and do not on their own communicate Facts.

>>18312547
Finally we're getting somewhere so you think non-Euclidean geometry is "an escapist fantasy." How would you describe the axiom chosen to get to spherical non-Euclidean geometry if not as arbitrary? Since you think it leads to a fantasy.

>>18312486
Wittgenstein private language argument proves that you cannot express internal sensations in language and that public language refers to outwardly displayed aspects, making the Empiricist formulation immediately flawed.

>>18312546

Okay, great the axioms are different. They use different words. Whoopdie fucking do. Since you don't actually know how math works I'll explain it to you again for the 20th fucking time.

distance in non-euclidean space is just arc length in euclidean space

let me repeat that for you

distance in non-euclidean space is just arc length in euclidean space

>>18312553
I gave a fucking list of metric spaces where the euclidean metric doesn't even make since. You're wrong bro just admit and move on

>>18312572
I've said it over and over.
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry

How do you arbitrarily choose which geometry is correct?

>>18312585
>choose which geometry is correct?
Bruh

>>18309552
tell me more?

>>18307345
bringing up godel is silly since in mathematics when we see that something is unprovable with our current tools, we just look for new ones. truth is deeper than provability
also langan refutes this:
>To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, Gödel used a simple trick called self-reference. Consider the statement “this sentence is false.” It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula. Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself? Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable? Let’s try it: "This formula is unprovable". If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem. Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof. On the other hand, suppose it is provable. Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)! It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox…a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.
>What if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof, calling one level the basic or "language" level and the other (higher) level the "metalanguage" level? Then we would have either a statement that can bemetalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognizable as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the basic language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least not a paradox. Presto: self-reference without the possibility of paradox!
>Such paradoxes are properly viewed not as static objects, but as dynamic alternations associated with a metalinguistic stratification that is constructively open-ended but transfinitely closed (note that this is also how we view the universe). Otherwise, the paradox corrupts the informational boundary between true and false and thus between all logical predicates and their negations, which of course destroys all possibility of not only its cognitive resolution, but cognition and perception themselves. Yet cognition and perception exist, implying that nature contrives to resolve such paradoxes wherever they might occur. In fact, the value of such a paradox is that it demonstrates the fundamental necessity for reality to incorporate a ubiquitous relativization mechanism for its resolution, namely the aforementioned metalinguistic stratification of levels of reference (including levels of self-reference, i.e. cognition). A paradox whose definition seems to preclude such stratification is merely a self-annihilating construct that violates the "syntax" (structural and inferential rules) of reality and therefore lacks a real model.

>>18312592
What about complex number? Quaternions? P-adics? Dual numbers? Hyperreals? Surreals? Which are fantasies that arbitrarily axioms led to and which have a real existence.

>>18312599
>>18307302
>In other words, to describe reality as cognitive, we must stratify cognition and organize the resulting levels of self-reference in a self-contained mathematical structure called Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL. SCSPL, which consists of a monic, recursive melding of information and cognition called infocognition, incorporates a metalogical axiom,Multiplex Unity or MU, that characterizes the universe as a syndiffeonic relation or "self-resolving paradox" (the paradox is "self-resolving" by virtue of SCSPL stratification). A syndiffeonic relation is just a universal quantum of inductive and deductive processing, i.e. cognition, whereby "different" objects are acknowledged to be "the same" with respect to their mutual relatedness.

the goal of a metaphysical framework is to provide the conditions that reality must conform to. it gains its methodological import by putting constraint on possible models of reality. it may leave sufficient degree of freedom so that a variety of different laws and geometries can be distributed. thus, arbitrariness is not necessarily an issue. especially when our starting point are minimalistic assumptions which any reality theory should allow -- mainly: consistency, comprehensiveness and self-containment (which is equivalent to the principle of sufficient reason)

>>18312610
They all exist in a priori conceptual space, which is just as objective and explorable as empirical space, in which discoveries procede by further unfolding of concepts to reveal what must be presupposed to state any logical or mathematical statement and what results logically or mathematically from that statement.

>>18312566
>you cannot express internal sensations in language

lol what? according to who? lmfao Let me guess he's using some unnatural weasely definition of "internal sensations" so he can say the thing? I'm going to start calling people who hate common sense "houdinis"

>>18312574

You literally don't know what you're talking about. Non-euclidean just means CURVED. you calculate distance in non-euclidean space by calculating ARC LENGTH in euclidean space. Shut the fuck up already jesus.

>>18312585

Are you saying you're scared of lines on a ball? What are you trying to tell me?

>>18312610

You're literally hysterical and don't know how any of the things you're talking about work. None of those systems are random. Complex numbers are an extension of the reals which allow you to find the roots of any algebraic equation. You would know this if you knew anything about math and weren't some neurotic idiot looking to rationalize your own uncertainty. Complex numbers aren't "random." Quaternions aren't "random." They all serve a purpose to solve certain types of problems. Surreals maybe not as much lmao.

>>18312619
>provide the conditions that reality must conform to.
Transcendental philosophy does the same, but unlike Metaphysics, it does not confuse our conditions of access to objects with properties of the objects themselves.

>>18312621
So do unicorns exist in a priori conceptual space? The whole issue with metaphysics is you can use anything you want as an axiom as long as it doesn't contradict itself or the other axioms you're using. If I'm understanding you right you think everything you can think of or refer to is real. Lookup Meinong's jungle that isn't a popular position in metaphysics.

>>18312631
you should try to read the rest of my post. the minimal assumptions are far more general than mere conditions of access. kant's antinomies are avoided within this metaphysical scheme

>>18312627
>Surreals maybe not as much lmao.
Fucking finally. Along with non-Euclidean geometry which you think is an escapist fantasy you acknowledge that just because surreals follow from some arbitrarily chosen axioms doesn't mean that they are real. Aristotle's Metaphysics is just as much a fantasy as those. Axioms are fundamentally unprovable that's why they are axioms and not theorems.

>>18312627
When you say "sad" or even "red" you are not referring to the internal sensation of redness or sadness, you are leaving the qualia completely untouched. You can tell this is the truth by imagining a community of language users who all have totally different internal experience of Red or Pain but display the same outward behavior and agree on which things are Red or Painful and such. Everything works out exactly the same, the linguistic game continues perfectly well, because pain does not refer to internal experience of pain but rather to the outwardly displayed behavior and linguistic convention associated with the word. Language is social.

You cannot privately assign words or symbols to internal sensations because you cannot follow a rule in private as there is no criterion to check whether you are using the word correctly (in society if you use it wrong, people don't understand you) other than your memory, which is a bit like buying a second copy of the Washington Post to fact-check the first copy you bought. Because there is no criterion for correctness, there is no rules to the private language, and language needs rules to exist. Therefore, you cannot have a private language and public language can be shown to refer only to outwardly displayed behavior. Internal sensations are thus impossible to put in language.

>>18312627
>
You literally don't know what you're talking about. Non-euclidean just means CURVED. you calculate distance in non-euclidean space by calculating ARC LENGTH in euclidean space. Shut the fuck up already jesus.

Non-Euclidean geometry means the fifth axiom is different from Euclidean geometry. You seriously think they are the same thing? Fucking idiot

>>18312634
Yes, Unicorns, if rigorously defined, exist in conceptual space. I can easily use a Unicorn within deductive logic, for instance, All unicorns have 4 legs, X is a Unicorn, X has 4 legs.

>>18312610
read

>>18310825
>What you don't get is that by claiming that something is the case, it doesn't just stop there. It has consequences which are traced in metaphysics. However, when you claim that unicorns exist, it has no real consequences, i.e. your metaphysics is of no relevance and nobody would bother arguing with you

You're trying so desperately to exclude things you don't like from your own metaphysics when it's a waste of energy. I don't lose sleep over santa claus being "real" because there aren't any significant consequences to it.

>>18312675
ITS DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOUR LINE IS ON A CURVED SPACE, BUT THIS CURVED SPACE EXISTS IN REGULAR OLD EUCLIDEAN SPACE

>>18312599
>therefore absurd
Only with first order logic.

> Presto: self-reference without the possibility of paradox!
Congratulations, you've discovered combinatory logic that allows for recursion. However the "paradox", or rather, incompleteness still exists - all you're achieving is a closed form of the logic clause (making it computable). It doesn't eliminate decision problem, merely turns it into a function/variable as super-imposed state, where the super-imposition itself is the proof of undecidability.

>>18312692
Holy shit you do think non-Euclidean geometry is the same as Euclidean geometry. Again

Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry
Parallel lines don't exist in spherical non-Euclidean geometry

It's like you're saying 1=2 then calling me an idiot.

>>18312662
bro surreals still scaffold off of real numbers, and they are based on intuitions we have anyways. they are not as useful maybe but thats because standard analysis is already pretty powerful

>>18312685
>I don't lose sleep over santa claus being "real" because there aren't any significant consequences to it.
That's exactly what I wrote, you dunce.

>>18312713
I understand that the point is to find something that defies these moron's intuition. They can not understand that you can make up whatever axioms that you want

I fucking hate philosophy of mathematics, fuck Godel, fuck Kant, I can't believe we gave up the perfection of Logicism because of some fucking stupid self-referential "this statement is false" incompleteness bullshit. I want to go back to Frege.

>>18312675
Keep reading wikipedia dumbass. See where it takes you.

>>18312692
lmao

>>18312663
>when you say "sad" or "red" you are not referring to the internal sensation of redness or sadness

That is total bullshit. I am absolutely referring to the internal sensation of redness or sadness. Everyone experiences red and sad differently and everyone knows and understands that. But we also all understand that the differences between us aren't great enough to justify us using a different word for "our own" redness and sadness so we all agree to use the same word. It's an approximation. Just because it's not exact doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. Fuck he didn't actually think that did he? What a lonely, out of touch way to live.

>display the same outward behavior

Also not true. Again, everyone is different but we all silently agree on approximations. Aspies ruin this because they have no theory of mind.

>You cannot privately assign words or symbols to internal sensations because you cannot follow a rule in private

Says who? Literally he's pulling this out of his ass. I can literally do anything I want in my own mind.

>there is no criterion to check whether you are using the word correctly

Why does it need to be "correct"? I think me and Witty have different ideas about what words are.

>there is no criterion for correctness

Literally anything can be a word. You can literally assign anything to anything else and that becomes the word for the thing. I have a hard time wittgenstein didn't know or understand this.

>therefore internal sensations are impossible to put in language

Sorry, I don't buy that "proof" for a second. It's completely riddled with flaws from beginning to end. I mean really, where does he come off saying "you can't privately assign words?" What kind of nightmarish inner life did wittgenstein have? He must have been constantly living in a state of peer pressure, constantly worrying about what other people might think. Unbelievable.

>>18312662
"No."

>>18312724

I wasn't responding to you I was quoting you to respond to >>18312610

>>18312731

I feel you but the answer isn't frege who was also a hack, the answer is literally just doing number theory and solving real problems and completely disregarding neurotic midwits like bertrand russell. Like fuck set theory, fuck category theory fuck n-lab, all of those people are so far up their own ass.

>>18312727

NO. I did NOT say that you CANT make up whatever axioms that you want. I said that the axioms we DO use are not RANDOM which is obviously fucking true. Obviously I don't think you can't "make up" axioms. Of fucking course you can. I've literally done it myself. I've probably made more arbitrary, useless and experimental logics than you and yet somehow I am the one firmly planted in reality. How does that work?

>>18306945
> I feel like I made a decision to spend money
the self is sophistry designed for money-spenders
it is part of the self-money duality and the myth of voluntary expense origination
it is easy broken by observing that if the alternative to not spending money is death, pain, or bodily decay, then the spending is coerced & non-voluntary
the issue is creating situations where people experience death, pain, or bodily decay unless they spend money, which is the practice of society
society is about poisoning people with the self-money duality and laughing at them while they die

>>18312731
That's still nothing, the rabbit hole goes deeper with philosophy of quantum mechanics where one can empirically observe undecidable states being resolved - "absurd" infinite search space of logic states can simply anneal to a ground state fitting a constraint.

Yes, this grossly violates Newtonian intuitions of brainlets like lagan ("infinitie states of a hamiltonian ain't real, therefore this is all absurd"), yet quantum computation works, and can be easily modeled as higher-order logic which is supposedly "absurd".

>>18312763
>That is total bullshit. I am absolutely referring to the internal sensation of redness or sadness.

He uses the thought experiment that everyone carries around a box with something inside, but everyone refers to what's in the box as a "beetle". So my box actually contains a fox, yours contains a cup, his contains a wasp. We can never open the box and show someone else and we have no reference to whats in other peoples boxes. So in this way, when we say "beetle", are we referring to the thing in the box or are we referring to "whatever is in the box" in a more abstract sense? Clearly the second. Same with internal experience. Sadness refers to the box that the thing we call sadness is in, anger, pain, red, etc.

>Why does it need to be "correct"?

To be a word and a language it needs to be consistent. Otherwise, its just nothing. The point is that you can only consult yourself for consistency so there is no criterion to check if you're using it consistently or not. You could start using it differently one day and never know and it would be impossible to say if you have or not. Meanwhile in public language, if I start using a word differently than other people they don't understand me and I am quickly put back in order. Keep in mind, the words in the private language refer ONLY to the internal sensations of the speaker and nothing else. You cannot say they are equal to any word in public language. You can coherently reassign names of things because there is a criterion for correctness there, you can write down "Goobgor" = Sadness but if you named an ephermaral internal sensation impossible to describe in public language "Norv" the only definition you could write would be "Norv" = "Norv". There is no definition, no rule.

>>18312793
Do you think arbitrary means necessarily random? It means random or based on a personal whim. An arbitrary decision doesn't mean the person had to toss a coin to choose yes or no

>>18306945
no no no
self is sophistry & meta-physics
it's a trick to get you to move money around
you die if you don't move money around, goy
now move my money around!!
*jew slaveholder cracks whip*

>>18312705
i thought we are just talking about self-reference without paradox?
>>18312727
this just seems like a stupid argument. most of the people itt didn't have the sense to call you out on the statement here: >>18307222. the entailment, to me, does not follow. you can have toy physics based on arbitrary models. just because you are playing with toy models, doesn't mean you are not doing physics. it is just that the models you are currently working with may not actually map out the physical world

if metaphysics is a higher order model-making which provides constraints on models (a decent approximate description i think), then it does not matter if the particular models that are being constrained get instantiated or not. mathematics when it deals with objects which lack valid physical models still has some objective validity. a similar thing can be said for metaphysics. but this is not too much a problem provided that our constraints are so general and obvious, it would be inexcusable to deny them (for the CTMU, the best alternative i can think of is if we have an alternative metaphysical system where reality is paraconsistent in a way that is somehow even more radical than langan's dialetheism. of course, i can't think of such a system, though hey it may still exist).

i believe this higher order restrictive capacity of metaphysics is extremely important practically. bergson's holographic model of the mind is a very ingenious resolution to several problems in philosophy of mind. i believe the CTMU only generalizes his insights

>>18312861
WHat the fuck are you on about

>>18312811
>are we referring to the thing in the box or are we referring to "whatever is in the box" in a more abstract sense?

No. It's much more obviously a mix of the two because of context. Context means everything. Someone saying "red" doesn't always mean the same thing and normal people understand this. Tone of voice, posture, where they are in life, etc. CONTEXT. You can't take things out of context. I see why you would think that it's the second but that's not correct and it's not accurate or close to how people actually interact with each other.

>to be a word it needs to be consistent
agreed

>otherwise it's just nothing
Not quite but I know what you mean. life isn't black and white like that. People aren't like computers where they're always consistent or always inconsistent. There's lots of gray area.

>The point is that you can only consult yourself for consistency so there is no criterion to check if you're using it consistently or not.

This would only be true if you frequently doubted your own perception and couldn't use it to compare things to reliably.

>You could start using it differently one day and never know and it would be impossible to say if you have or not

Again this isn't necessarily the case.

>if I start using a word differently than other people they don't understand me and I am quickly put back in order.

It depends. Again, context is important here. If you use something that is "wrong" but in the right context, SOME people WILL understand you and might even think it's funny. You could even say this is the basis of comedy.

I think his argument relies too much on this disconnected, context-free view of language which doesn't actually correspond to reality very well. Language isn't context-free. That's why it's so easy to spot bot posts because AI can't understand context.

>>18307105
numbers doesn't exist

>>18312822
>based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

>random choice or personal whim

>choice or personal whim
>or personal whim
>or
>OR

Learn what a disjunction is then get back to me

>>18312872
The "paradox" (proof by contradiction) of self-reference (in terms of first order predicates) is used only as intuition for undecidability.

Formally, the proof lies in using higher order logic system that can accomodate undecidable variables (as long those aren't observed), and observing if they cancel out.

Such a system is computable, but since you can't observe the states, it propagates into the whole proof as undecidable.

The proof is done like this because a lot of problems that are "paradox" in first order logic often cease to be in higher orders (not here though).

>>18312877
I'm not explaining this well. Check out the summary of the argument on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument ) and if you need more info, check out what he actually said in the Philosophical Investigations from §256 onward, ignore Kripke and his goonery entirely.

>>18312912
Are you shitting me? Arbitrary axiom choice a.k.a. axiom choice based on personal whim. How the fuck is that different than making axioms up that you yourself acknowledged that people are allowed to do. You can even fucking read.

>>18312808
>Yes, this grossly violates Newtonian intuitions of brainlets like lagan ("infinitie states of a hamiltonian ain't real, therefore this is all absurd")
langan believes this is completely possible and that the CTMU is the only way to understand what is going on. this is why he describes reality as a "self-resolving paradox". quantum mechanics is intimately tied to the problem of self-reference in his naturphilosophie. you are making a very strange move by moving from self-reference to undecidability. the two things are not mutually exclusive

>>18312920
>>18312955
also to further quote langan again:
>A Theory of Everything (TOE) is not a theory that "explains everything" down to the smallest detail. Due to problems like undecidability and Heisenberg uncertainty, it can't be exhaustively predictive. A TOE is a theory that explains reality in the large, comprehensively but with reasonable limits on specificity.

>>18312933

For a second I thought you were actually going to reference the axiom of choice which has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. Then I realized this was an incoherent bot pot. Yes, I can even fucking read. Lmao. Behold the power of context free grammars.

>>18312929

It's alright man I appreciate the effort. You write well. I'll try and read what he has to say and see if it's more convincing.

>>18312878

You go little guy, keep at it!

>>18312993
Wtf is a bot pot? And you don't know what arbitrary means

>>18312993
So why did you attack the post for using the term 'arbitrary' ?

>>18313054
Because he think it means random see this
>NO. I did NOT say that you CANT make up whatever axioms that you want. I said that the axioms we DO use are not RANDOM which is obviously fucking true.
where he replaced arbitrary with RANDOM

>>18313064
he replaced it with 'not RANDOM'
you fucking retarded

>>18313084
Rofl so he replaced arbitrary with "not Random" so lets go reverse it.
>I said that the axioms we DO use are arbitrary(replacing not RANDOM) which is obviously fucking true.
So he agrees with me? You're so fucking stupid I don't even know why I bother.

>>18312955
Beware, infinities in QTM is no longer a paradox, it's perfectly valid state in that system. Self-reference itself is just means of representing infinity in first order logic (poorly).

Most mathfags consider staying in first order as clumsy, because you can use that only for approximations of higher order systems at best. It's the same as defining circle as polygonal shape - you end up with infinite vertices ("a paradox"), but only if you have no syntax to reresent a circle.

Pseuds essentially say that circles are just infinite side polygons, occupying same rank, and the paradox of infinity is somehow magically resolved.

Mainstream mathfag view is that the infinity is a separate rank of its own, and not meta-magic. This is further corroborated in that we know empirically that polygons manifest only when we try to measure the circle (collapse of WF). This hints that the whole notion of infinity paradox is our oversimplification of reality - a mistaken abstraction if you start from a wrong axiom.

Speaking of axioms, intuitions of newtonian reality and trying to shoehorn it everywhere are a prime example of how initial axioms can go wrong. This runs pretty rampant in classical philosophy because their language of "reason" is largely first-order, with only some vague hints of basic second-order (acausality, meta states). Analytical philosophy tried to bridge the gap, but you tell me wtf happened here and didn't.

>>18313096
>I don't even know why I bother.
Yeah, I also wonder why you bother.
The semantic meaning of the post was very clear (to me), but then you go off on a tantrum because someone dares to use the word arbitrary(correctly) and start shitting all over the place

>>18313126
I can't even tell which person you are now. I'm the one that was using arbitrary from the beginning. Idiot anon thinks arbitrary means only random. This me here >>18312822
and also me here >>18313096

>>18307135
>Metaphysics has been around for thousands of years
So have criticisms of metaphysics

>>18312981
>A Theory of Everything (TOE) is not a theory that "explains everything" down to the smallest detail. Due to problems like undecidability and Heisenberg uncertainty, it can't be exhaustively predictive. A TOE is a theory that explains reality in the large, comprehensively but with reasonable limits on specificity.

That's quite a cop out. So tl;dr is: "let's use basic abstractions that even a pleb can intuitively understand, no matter the contradictions and inaccuracies this brings".

I have to admit, it's not entirely a bad idea for people who want to understand the intuition. It's a disaster rigor wise, because we're about 2 centuries past doing things this way.

>>18313064
Arbitrary literally means random, you absolutely insufferable retard

>based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Is this really your counterargument? You're just going to lie?

>>18313054
Which post are you talking about? Whatever it is, nothing changes the fact that the axioms of math we use are not "arbitrary"

>>18313064
Arbitrary means random. Don't be a fucking idiot. You've already done enough of that.

>>18313084
>>18313096
This is the dumbest exchange I've ever read.

I'm done with this thread.

Metaphysics is abstraction. Something being real or existing doesn't mean it has important consequences. Axioms are not arbitrary. Making arbitrary axioms doesn't imply that axioms are arbitrary. Arbitrary means random. Numbers are real and derived empirically. Math and logic are branches of metaphysics. Theorems are metaphysics. That's it. End of Story. Goodnight.

>>18313279
>or personal whim
Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct. Arbitrary doesn't mean only random

>>18313202
>criticism exists

I'm fucking shaking.

>>18313288
>ctrl+f
>"only"
>0 results found

A disjunctive statement is true if either of it's constituent states are true. So basically what I'm saying is, shut the fuck up.

>>18313305
Rofl so if you chose an axiom based on personal whim that is an arbitrary choice. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper

>>18313279
>Arbitrary means random
>>18313305
>A disjunctive statement is true if either of it's constituent states are true
Arbitrary means random or based on personal whim. If something is based on personal whim it is arbitrary without being random. Anon is right you're stupid.

>>18313248
well the issue comes from trying to make metaphysics do more than it needs to do. i already have written in above posts a good alternative way of understanding a key end result of metaphysics
>>18313111
>Beware, infinities in QTM is no longer a paradox, it's perfectly valid state in that system. Self-reference itself is just means of representing infinity in first order logic (poorly)
the paradox here that langan identifies is in the possibilities of the wave function. how can all of these various states in some sense still have a coincidence? the resolution is obviously that we have some form of syntax which grants sameness while providing the conditions of difference. the particular semantic content emerges out of a selection from syntax. it isn't relevant to physical theories as they sort of take this for granted, but is to any interpretation of qm

the circle polygon thing is an interesting way of visualizing things. idk if infinite vertices is really a paradox though... i guess it is if we are required that the vertices be a real number distance apart (as oppose to permitting infinitesimals or something)

>>18313279
>>18313360
arbitrary (in this context) = w/o any constraints which may function as explanatory resources for why one object is chosen and not some other i.e. random = magical. on that account anon is right. if mathematics is born out of our intuitions and empirical observation, it isn't arbitrary.

using the term "personal whim" is merely misleading. in so far as our cognition has structural and processing constraints, this whim still entails some restriction, hence it isn't arbitrary

though as i have mentioned earlier this is an insufficient angle for understanding why metaphysics is useful

>>18312993
show me a number shithead

>>18313371
>how can all of these various states in some sense still have a coincidence?
That's how the infinity manifests in first-order view. It's how we simulate quantum computers classically on very tiny scale - we simply brute force enumerate spectrum of states, one to next, until the coincidence is found.

This is still imprecise (ie polygon instead of circle), but good enough to approximate small QC circuits.

Of note is that one doesn't need to go as far QM fo this.

Simple macroscopic n-body problem exhibits same effects, albeit its far more limited in its usefulness. You can simulate n-body to arbitrary precision, but for exact solution of "coincidences", you'd need infinite time. Yet universe finds solution instantly. In math this is frequent - fe. irrational numbers, the polygon example demonstrating pi. These objects are intued classically (as polygon), but then formally upgraded to higher order that encompass their infinite nature, and we treat em as black box you can intue with further (creating a tower of orders).

Philosophers are sometimes tempted to call this tower "meta", and in sense it is, but in practice its pretty distinct because these have rigorously explicit object relationships, whereas metaphysics tries to apply the same thing to objects of general reasoning in natural language in fairly loose sense.

The only weird thing about QM is EPR (non-locality). The property of "instant constraint solution" isn't even all that interesting.

To deal ith EPR, a whole new object representative order is invented to model reality in really exotic manner compliant with EPR - multiple worlds, superdeterminism, holographic principle... you name it.

>TFW when I cannot set an axiom according to my personal whim
;(

>>18313701
Sure you can. Think what political ideologies are - speculative fiction running from starting axioms selected on a whim.

>>18313701
But you can. My new axiom is unicorns exist. I can deduce from that whatever logically follows. You can make anything you want as an axiom as long as it doesn't contradict another axiom in the same system. If you don't care about contradiction you don't even have restrict yourself in that way.

>>18313701
>>18313715
And selecting based on personal whim means the axiom is arbitrary.

>muh axioms

You guys need to read Laruelle

>axiom

>>18313726
>>18313746
My next next d&d session character will be named "Axiom Random, The Barbarian" because that's what his stats are.

>>18313730
I only brought up axioms because one of the morons far up the thread was trying to tie metaphysics to math to prop up metaphysic's legitimacy. Metaphysics is made up and dumb

>>18313749
Yeah I don't even know what he thought a random axiom was. Like you just throw words together or what? Calling your choice of axioms arbitrary is a common thing in logic.

>>18313767
>Metaphysics is made up and dumb
bruh

>>18313810
The four causes bruh. Totally real and not just pulled out of Aristotle's ass.

>>18306960
>The discontinuity of consciousness
You have never observed a discontinuity of consciousness before in your life and so you have no empirical evidence that it actually happens. If you could observe it you would be conscious of it and so you wouldn't be observing the lapse of your consciousness but you'd simply be conscious.
>>18307102
That's wrong for the reason that qualia has to do with unique qualities of specific content when presented in experience, like the visual sensation of seeing blue, but without an unwavering presence who all the qualia are presented *to*, we would not be able to have the experience that we have. One type of content is unable to observe or know any other content since as content they are all insentient alike, there has to be an awareness separate from the insentient content in order for all of it to be integrated into a unified experience like our consciousness has, because the contentness of blue cannot know other content like hearing sounds, thinking thoughts etc.

>>18313898
You've never seen your eyeball but you don't doubt that its implied by the existence of the visual field

>>18307102
The self is an emergent property of various relations of ideas. An impression or an idea is not the self, but a collection of them in relations of habit is.

>>18307208
The 17th century called, they want their cartesianism back

>>18314098
I have conscious experience of sight during which the eye reveals its existence through its revealing of other things, the same cannot be said of the alleged ending of consciousness in dreamless sleep

>>18314119
>The self is an emergent property of various relations of ideas
That’s incorrect because ideas lack self-awareness and they *as known content* have to be witnessed by awareness, i.e. the self, in order to be known