Contradiction and the Absolute

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6048
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:49 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:56 pm
1) x exists
2) x does not exist
3) Neither 1 nor 2 are true.
4) Both 1 and 2 are true.

3 and 4 are both contradictory. Only 1 or 2 can be true. Either x exists, or it doesn't. It can't both exist and not exist at the same time. Neither can it not exist and not not exist at the same time.
It's not that easy to establish that either x exists, or it doesn't. Of course we can define that as axiom of a logical system, which would make it true by definition, but this might not map to the fabric of reality that effective overall.

Conceptual thought and in its wake our language does both adhere to the principle of identity (to be - not to be, A or not A) but also allows for ambiguity and implying or at least allowing for changing, simultaneous perspectives on the same thing at the same time. It's possible to see double or triple.

Which would bring the question down to what is the most open and fertile position to begin with. And that would be number 5: all of the above. Which indeed would imply one doesn't know anything absolute at all about x itself but does imply that number five approached an absolute statement which is always true as it allows for all possible perspectives.

But in practice, not all perspectives are being embodied all of the time. It would impair "functionality" a word which means that there is a purpose derived from a context (causality) which will lead to a path, relative truth and a kind of life, appearing and disappearing again. This means that right action is also a truth and cannot be named further. We all strive for it nevertheless.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:52 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:49 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:56 pm
1) x exists
2) x does not exist
3) Neither 1 nor 2 are true.
4) Both 1 and 2 are true.

3 and 4 are both contradictory. Only 1 or 2 can be true. Either x exists, or it doesn't. It can't both exist and not exist at the same time. Neither can it not exist and not not exist at the same time.
It's not that easy to establish that either x exists, or it doesn't. Of course we can define that as axiom of a logical system, which would make it true by definition, but this might not map to the fabric of reality that effective overall.

Conceptual thought and in its wake our language does both adhere to the principle of identity (to be - not to be, A or not A) but also allows for ambiguity and implying or at least allowing for changing, simultaneous perspectives on the same thing at the same time. It's possible to see double or triple.

Which would bring the question down to what is the most open and fertile position to begin with. And that would be number 5: all of the above. Which indeed would imply one doesn't know anything absolute at all about x itself but does imply that number five approached an absolute statement which is always true as it allows for all possible perspectives.

But in practice, not all perspectives are being embodied all of the time. It would impair "functionality" a word which means that there is a purpose derived from a context (causality) which will lead to a path, relative truth and a kind of life, appearing and disappearing again. This means that right action is also a truth and cannot be named further. We all strive for it nevertheless.
I can't imagine what can be gained by allowing for option 5. If you want to say you don't know, then say you don't know, but to claim the simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility requires some sort of proof or rationale above and beyond just merely stating that you don't know.

Now, I can see x existing as a concept of imagination and not as a construct in spacetime where it can be said to exist and not exist simultaneously, but only because the reference frames were different. I exist as a wiggle as part of a larger wiggle, but I do not exist distinct from the wiggle (ie outside of everything).

Meaningful statements cannot be made about everything because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to judge.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6048
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:15 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:52 am
If you want to say you don't know, then say you don't know, but to claim the simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility requires some sort of proof or rationale above and beyond just merely stating that you don't know.
Why is this requirement different from claiming there are only two options, like that something exists or it does not? From science, logic or mindful observation it would not be that difficult to give at least some examples of cases where multiple views can be held simultaneously but for example only one of those would imply any particular "existence".
I exist as a wiggle as part of a larger wiggle, but I do not exist distinct from the wiggle (ie outside of everything).
You just transferred the issue of existence to that of a wiggle with the property of being omnipresent. Which would mean there could be nothing to wiggle into (it would be already there). So your example implies already simultaneous views: a larger wiggle occurs and yet it doesn't. And you easily wield the concept as if it's true for you.
Meaningful statements cannot be made about everything because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to judge.
Meaning and existence are strongly related that way -- extremely connection driven. But it would imply "connections" which cannot be called existing. That is why it can only be true that only the infinite truly exist or it does not exist at all.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:15 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:52 am
If you want to say you don't know, then say you don't know, but to claim the simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility requires some sort of proof or rationale above and beyond just merely stating that you don't know.
Why is this requirement different from claiming there are only two options, like that something exists or it does not?
You're asking how

1) x exists
2) x does not exist

is different from

1) x exists and not exists
2) neither x exists nor not exists
3) both are true

If you want to assert that 3 is true, then you have to provide rationale for the possible truth of 1 and 2. Claiming 3 is not the same as claiming "I don't know".

The only way you could accomplish that is by splitting the points of reference such that x exists in one frame, but doesn't exist in another, but that assertion doesn't carry relevant information. For instance, a guy in the north can see the northern lights, but a guy on the equator can't. Yeah, ok, so what? The two reference frames are different. It would be more relevant to say one northern guy can see the lights and another northern guy cannot and that would be illustration of the simultaneous existence and nonexistence from at least a similar reference point.
From science, logic or mindful observation it would not be that difficult to give at least some examples of cases where multiple views can be held simultaneously but for example only one of those would imply any particular "existence".
Examples may help iron-out miscommunications.
I exist as a wiggle as part of a larger wiggle, but I do not exist distinct from the wiggle (ie outside of everything).
You just transferred the issue of existence to that of a wiggle with the property of being omnipresent. Which would mean there could be nothing to wiggle into (it would be already there). So your example implies already simultaneous views: a larger wiggle occurs and yet it doesn't. And you easily wield the concept as if it's true for you.

The omnipresent wiggle isn't omnipresent, but exists relative to its own on/off states much the same as light creates its own medium of existence as it travels. Light can plow right through absolute nothingness by creating itself as it goes. That is, the electric field generates the magnetic field which generates the electric field and so on, but it's not omnipresent in time, rather it oscillates between states of existence. Existence includes nonexistence wherein nonexistence is conditional for existence of an oscillation.

Furthermore, the emission and reception of a photon is the same event because no time or space occurs between faux-events. Therefore, the perception of any light is itself an illusion and artifact of the illusion of time and space. From that point of view, we could say that nothing exists, but we can't claim that nothing exists from evidence gathered from differing points of view. Existence is always relational and that's relational to the fact that if it weren't, it wouldn't be. For instance, 2+2=4 is true because 4<2+2<4 is absurd. If you desire to create a logic that allows for absurdities, that's cool, but what insight could be gained by doing so?
Meaningful statements cannot be made about everything because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to judge.
Meaning and existence are strongly related that way -- extremely connection driven. But it would imply "connections" which cannot be called existing. That is why it can only be true that only the infinite truly exist or it does not exist at all.
You'd have to define "the infinite" because, as I understand it, it's a process which is merely boundless instead of being a thing that can be quantified, conceptualized, or said to exist in any meaningful way.

Relationally, zero and infinity are paired. ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... Every integer has a pair where zero is paired with infinity since the only infinite that can exist is that of zero and neither exist outside of mathematics.

There are finite numbers (called dark numbers) that cannot be expressed in the observable universe even if the digits were written on the planck scale. Finite numbers are those that could exist as "things" instead of processes, but even finite dark numbers cannot be said to exist.

FWD to 10:00 if it doesn't cue https://youtu.be/WabHm1QWVCA?t=9m57s

The only way around that problem is to create an infinite universe to house the dark numbers and "the infinite", but then we'll have problems with infinite energy and any notions of conservation of energy consequently vaporize. Additionally, an infinite universe would exist at the now-realized point of "eternity", which makes absolutely no sense (ie if the universe expands forever, then when forever arrives, the universe will be infinite. That day will never come because we can always add another day and a bit more expansion. Therefore to say we exist in that state now is nonsense.)

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:29 am

Glostik91 wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:18 pm
I don’t understand how you can challenge the existence of the concept of existence. While challenging the existence of something, you have already conceived existence.
I'm not challenging the existence of existence, but the existence of existence in the abstract. Existence is a relative term like "hotter" which doesn't exist abstractly because a subject needs and object. There is nothing outside of everything to be the subject that observes the object of everything. As soon as you conceive of a reference point outside of everything, then it's no longer everything.

I see what you're saying... that there must be something that exists that is fundamental to everything and absolute unto itself, but I'm claiming that is a meaningless idea. For something to be absolute, it would have an inside to contain everything, but no outside. How can that be? If there is no shared boundary, then how can it have an inside?

Most likely the nonexistence of 'positive' engenders the existence of 'negative' and vice versa. The existence of one is relational to the existence of the other. If the two are combined, we have cancellation and are left with nothing.
Causality is a way in which we come to understand the phenomenal world.
That's fine... It's a construct of imagination, but we must realize that before imposing our conceptions on reality.
Are you talking about things as they are perceived, or are you talking about things in themselves (a thing as it truly is in itself)?

If the first, I am perceiving this phone. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be making this post, now would I?

If the second, you do not have knowledge of a thing as it truly is in itself. A thing in itself may exist. It may not. You don't know.
I know from physics that phones are constructed of atoms which are constructed of "fundamental particles" which are energy densities existing as part of at least one medium called the gluon field and interacting with another called the Higgs field. It's not much different from the virtual cyber world where things exist on an LCD display as energy densities (where a white pixel has more energy than black). In neither case is a thing really a thing unto itself, but they're aspects of the medium that contains them.

This is what empty space looks like:

Image

If we pull apart a quark/antiquark pair, the energy put into the pulling will create another quark/antiquark pair from seemingly nothing and that demonstration testifies that there really is no such thing as matter... since it appears out of nowhere like a pixel on an LCD.

Good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

Because of quantum tunneling, it's possible to throw your phone towards a wall and have it appear on the other side unscathed, but it's astronomically unlikely since it would require every particle inside the phone to decide to tunnel at the same time (I say "decide" because it's random and uncaused). Superposition is also possible, but exceedingly unlikely for the same reason. Superposition is the basis for the Many Worlds interpretation which insists that all possible replies to this thread already exist, both future and past (seems silly to me, but some folks buy it).

Anyway, the point I wanted to convey is that things do not exist as we perceive them and furthermore, perception is limited to that which contains "charge".

Vision = perception of oscillations in charged particles by means of EM radiation
Smell = chemical reactions dependent upon baryonic (charged) matter.
Taste = ditto
Touch = perception of interatomic forces generated by charged particles (electrostatic)
Hearing = perception of pressure waves propagating by electrostatic intermolecular interactions.

We can perceive gravity, but not on an atomic scale. Essentially, all we perceive is charge. We can infer dark matter, but we can't interact with it (except by gravity, which isn't perceptible). So at the fundamental of what we call reality is the oscillations between + and -.

If we go deeper and into string theory, then all matter is vibrating strings which is still another way of saying on/off.
A priori is a term Kant used to refer to knowledge which is gained prior to an experience. For example, 2+2=4 is known a priori. I don't have to go to the other end of the galaxy and have an experience of 2+2=4 to know that 2+2=4 over there just as it does here.
There is nothing that is not experienced. The concept of "plus" is gained by experience as well as the concept of "two". What divides a priori from a posteriori is arbitrary depending how you choose to define experience.

What was it Otto Weininger said about genius? "The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it.” Does that mean everything is a priori to a genius? Is 2+2 a priori to a dog? Where do we draw the line between a priori and posteriori in order to make a universal and absolute claim?
Just because someone has read the critique of pure reason and uses it's terminology sometimes does not necessarily mean that someone is up to something egoic.

I said I could be wrong, but from the context of the post, it seemed you were assuming a higher authority over me by peppering with "student, nonsense, a priori". But it's cool... no harm done.
It also doesn't stop you from asking me to explain what I mean by a word (or just googling it yourself). I don't go around telling buddhists to keep their ego in check because they have read books I haven't read and use words I'm not familiar with.
I think people use big words to project an image. Every time I write, I have to make a decision: Do I use big words and seem pompous or use small words and seem stupid? Am I trying to convey a point to a wider audience or am I desiring for one to struggle to decipher my parlance. In real life, I sometimes say "you was" instead of "you were" because that is the dialect of the commoners in my area and I don't want to seem snobby. When I read PubMed, I think, "Is this language really necessary? Do they talk to their friends this way?" Like, "Hey Bob, I posit a randomized sampling of an aqueous solution of volatile organic compounds at the establishment adjacent to the intersection of perpendicular sidewalks" instead of "Hey man, wanna grab a beer?"
It seems to me that you are stuck on this idea of existence.

If it's the case that nothing exists then for the sake of understanding we need new terms for things which used to exist (things like phones, streets, plants, fingers, etc) and of course the rest of the nonexistent things (things like unicorns, fairies, gods, a space-elevator in my backyard, etc), because how else am I supposed to understand and communicate the difference between one thing (like a phone) and another thing (like a magic stone)? Clearly there's a difference between these two things (in that one exists and the other doesn't), but if I can't say that one exists and other doesn't, then what should I say about them?

Now I propose that we basically just keep the term as it is for the sake of communication and understanding, and have different terms for when we want to talk about the difference between a thing perceived and a thing in itself.
It's not the difference between a thing perceived and a thing in itself, but existence is relational in concept. Abstract existence is meaningless.
If a category of understanding must be verified by the concept of relation, then what verifies the concept of relation (which is itself a category of understanding)?
By using another relation... the relation to abstraction... the relation to absurdity.
So you're saying that the concept of relation doesn't need verification. There is no need to try and misdirect me by saying, just use a different relation. Fundamentally what you're saying is that the categories of relation need no verification because they are fundamental to our understanding.
I suppose that is correct. Can "on" exist by itself or is it relational to "off"? Do we need to verify that or is it a priori? In fact, it's by definition since "on" is "not-off", so the nonexistence of off causes the existence of on.

Coincidentally, this article arrived today on zerohedge: Why Quantum Physics, AI, & Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are Living In A Video Game

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6048
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:21 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 am
Why is this requirement different from claiming there are only two options, like that something exists or it does not?
If you want to assert that 3 is true, then you have to provide rationale for the possible truth of 1 and 2. Claiming 3 is not the same as claiming "I don't know".
My point was that to require proof or rationale for simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility is not different than requiring proof for the possibility of some pure exclusivity of the binary state: to exist or not. While one can start with mathematics and the reflexive property of equality, these are systems based on well defined axioms. And this system works okay when a subset of tests are submitted to it. All boiled down first to some mathematical or binary nature. A magical bullet!
beyond just merely stating that you don't know
Well, Socrates had no problem with it as some fertile type of skepticism, as way of examining. And examining one must, if the mind is geared for it. But the desire to examine truthfully, demands feedback mechanisms, usually with sharp blades & painful.
The only way you could accomplish that is by splitting the points of reference
But it's really not difficult, and even desirable, to hold two or more views on one topic in mind. Or even visually, to determine objects. The brain has the function to provide us as much as possible one coherent picture, word or meaning at the time. And to provide as such focal points for our verbal, abstracting consciousness. But underneath all that much noise, perspective and meanings are simultaneously competing. You seem to say that because your brain hands you simple, coherent pictures, one thing at the time, that this somehow tells you that things exist in "one mode at the time"? Yes, for logical comprehension that is true and for higher reasoning we need the logic. But that does not mean we are mapping actual objects: just aiming for logical truths.
The omnipresent wiggle isn't omnipresent, but exists relative to its own on/off states much the same as light creates its own medium of existence as it travels.
Then it's not a wiggle really, like photons are not classically existing things flying through some aether. You'd arrive at the problem of defining a QED vacuum in terms of meaningful existence. Which I think only furthers my point, not yours.
Therefore, the perception of any light is itself an illusion and artifact of the illusion of time and space. From that point of view, we could say that nothing exists, but we can't claim that nothing exists from evidence gathered from differing points of view.
But that would be a great example for my point! It seems to me that the definitions of existence can change. They have to because the definition is confined by boundaries which depend on the context (science, dream, bean counting etc). Since the boundaries change, the properties and conditions of a notion like existence change with it.
Relationally, zero and infinity are paired. ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... Every integer has a pair where zero is paired with infinity since the only infinite that can exist is that of zero and neither exist outside of mathematics(...)
Additionally, an infinite universe would exist at the now-realized point of "eternity", which makes absolutely no sense
This is still about mathematics, eg infinite sets, irrational numbers etc. They are still confined philosophically by axioms. There's a higher principle like: "provability is a weaker notion than truth" (Hofstadter) -- as truth still functions as final axiom.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:10 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:21 pm
My point was that to require proof or rationale for simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility is not different than requiring proof for the possibility of some pure exclusivity of the binary state: to exist or not.
In that case I thank you for bringing the thought-provoking binary analogy up for consideration, but I can't, for the life of me, imagine how a thing can both exist and not exist in the same frame of spacial and temporal reference. Since you are the author of this novel idea, can you offer anything to help me understand? It is possible that I can both understand and not understand at the same time? If so, I must be focusing on the latter ;)

I mean, it's not even quantum superposition where one thing exists in multiple simultaneous places, which is plenty counterintuitive, but to both exist and not exist in the same place and at the same time seems to undermine all of logic. (Just for the record, I'm not a giant fan of superposition either. In fact, I believe it's the superposition of potentialities rather than actual existences.)
beyond just merely stating that you don't know
Well, Socrates had no problem with it as some fertile type of skepticism, as way of examining. And examining one must, if the mind is geared for it. But the desire to examine truthfully, demands feedback mechanisms, usually with sharp blades & painful.
Oh, so you're merely playing devil's advocate? Haha I thought you were honestly making an assertion.
The only way you could accomplish that is by splitting the points of reference
But it's really not difficult, and even desirable, to hold two or more views on one topic in mind.
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Well done sir!
You seem to say that because your brain hands you simple, coherent pictures, one thing at the time, that this somehow tells you that things exist in "one mode at the time"? Yes, for logical comprehension that is true and for higher reasoning we need the logic. But that does not mean we are mapping actual objects: just aiming for logical truths.
Schrodinger's cat was both alive and dead at the same time, but only in potentiality. Subscribers to the Many Worlds would say that the cat is indeed both alive and dead, but we can only travel down one path. To me, that view is exceedingly inefficient and would require near-infinite energy (whatever that means). And they claim nothing becomes real until we look for it (as a type of conservation of energy like a video game that doesn't load a room into memory until we walk in it, likewise nothing is truly there until we need it to be). If that is true, then why all the other worlds that we aren't conscious of?
The omnipresent wiggle isn't omnipresent, but exists relative to its own on/off states much the same as light creates its own medium of existence as it travels.
Then it's not a wiggle really, like photons are not classically existing things flying through some aether.
The photon wouldn't be "flying through", but be a function of the aether, but Michelson–Morley disproved that idea. Actually, the photon creates its own aether as it goes (of course, it remains to be seen if electric and magnetic fields can exist in absolute nothingness, but for now that is assumed.)
You'd arrive at the problem of defining a QED vacuum in terms of meaningful existence. Which I think only furthers my point, not yours.
It's good for me then that I don't buy the vacuum lol. Vacuum in terms of what? What is vacated? Gluons? Ok, then what remains? Is the Higgs field still there? How about other fields that we haven't discovered yet? What about the electric fields of the charged quarks or the proton itself? There can't be disconnects in reality, so no absolute vacuums.
Therefore, the perception of any light is itself an illusion and artifact of the illusion of time and space. From that point of view, we could say that nothing exists, but we can't claim that nothing exists from evidence gathered from differing points of view.
But that would be a great example for my point! It seems to me that the definitions of existence can change. They have to because the definition is confined by boundaries which depend on the context (science, dream, bean counting etc). Since the boundaries change, the properties and conditions of a notion like existence change with it.
Actually, I think I agree with that. I'm arguing against absolute existence, so variable existence makes sense. Existence is relative to the context, medium, notion, construct, idea, whatever.
Relationally, zero and infinity are paired. ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... Every integer has a pair where zero is paired with infinity since the only infinite that can exist is that of zero and neither exist outside of mathematics(...)
Additionally, an infinite universe would exist at the now-realized point of "eternity", which makes absolutely no sense
This is still about mathematics, eg infinite sets, irrational numbers etc. They are still confined philosophically by axioms. There's a higher principle like: "provability is a weaker notion than truth" (Hofstadter) -- as truth still functions as final axiom.
We need axioms.

"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." - Aaron Tippin

“If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it.” - William A. Orton

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” - G.K. Chesterton

An axiom is like a tree growing a new branch. It is committed in direction and if it doesn't find the light, it dies and so what? Other branches will find new directions and the tree will go on. But to not have axioms is like a tree with no branches; death of the tree is guaranteed.

Glostik91
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:03 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:29 am
I'm not challenging the existence of existence, but the existence of existence in the abstract. Existence is a relative term like "hotter" which doesn't exist abstractly because a subject needs and object. There is nothing outside of everything to be the subject that observes the object of everything. As soon as you conceive of a reference point outside of everything, then it's no longer everything.

I see what you're saying... that there must be something that exists that is fundamental to everything and absolute unto itself, but I'm claiming that is a meaningless idea. For something to be absolute, it would have an inside to contain everything, but no outside. How can that be? If there is no shared boundary, then how can it have an inside?

Most likely the nonexistence of 'positive' engenders the existence of 'negative' and vice versa. The existence of one is relational to the existence of the other. If the two are combined, we have cancellation and are left with nothing.
What is the difference between existence and existence in the abstract? Abstract means a concept or an idea. If one is not allowed to conceive existence, then no one can recognize (much less challenge) if a thing exists.
I know from physics that phones are constructed of atoms which are constructed of "fundamental particles" which are energy densities existing as part of at least one medium called the gluon field and interacting with another called the Higgs field. It's not much different from the virtual cyber world where things exist on an LCD display as energy densities (where a white pixel has more energy than black). In neither case is a thing really a thing unto itself, but they're aspects of the medium that contains them.

This is what empty space looks like:
If we pull apart a quark/antiquark pair, the energy put into the pulling will create another quark/antiquark pair from seemingly nothing and that demonstration testifies that there really is no such thing as matter... since it appears out of nowhere like a pixel on an LCD.

Good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

Because of quantum tunneling, it's possible to throw your phone towards a wall and have it appear on the other side unscathed, but it's astronomically unlikely since it would require every particle inside the phone to decide to tunnel at the same time (I say "decide" because it's random and uncaused). Superposition is also possible, but exceedingly unlikely for the same reason. Superposition is the basis for the Many Worlds interpretation which insists that all possible replies to this thread already exist, both future and past (seems silly to me, but some folks buy it).

Anyway, the point I wanted to convey is that things do not exist as we perceive them and furthermore, perception is limited to that which contains "charge".

Vision = perception of oscillations in charged particles by means of EM radiation
Smell = chemical reactions dependent upon baryonic (charged) matter.
Taste = ditto
Touch = perception of interatomic forces generated by charged particles (electrostatic)
Hearing = perception of pressure waves propagating by electrostatic intermolecular interactions.

We can perceive gravity, but not on an atomic scale. Essentially, all we perceive is charge. We can infer dark matter, but we can't interact with it (except by gravity, which isn't perceptible). So at the fundamental of what we call reality is the oscillations between + and -.

If we go deeper and into string theory, then all matter is vibrating strings which is still another way of saying on/off.
Do you think I am of the opinion that these things you're talking about are unfactual concerning the phone?

How do any of these things disprove the fact that the phone looks black or that the phone feels hard or that the phone can be used to make calls?
There is nothing that is not experienced. The concept of "plus" is gained by experience as well as the concept of "two". What divides a priori from a posteriori is arbitrary depending how you choose to define experience.

What was it Otto Weininger said about genius? "The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it.” Does that mean everything is a priori to a genius? Is 2+2 a priori to a dog? Where do we draw the line between a priori and posteriori in order to make a universal and absolute claim?
A priori means prior to an experience.

Prior to having an experience of the other side of the universe, I can know that 2+2=4 over there.
It's not the difference between a thing perceived and a thing in itself, but existence is relational in concept. Abstract existence is meaningless.
You’re saying that these things don’t exist, that the idea (abstraction) that these things exist is gibberish (meaningless). If that’s the case then what word ought I use here to designate these things? (the existent and nonexistent things I listed.)
I suppose that is correct. Can "on" exist by itself or is it relational to "off"? Do we need to verify that or is it a priori? In fact, it's by definition since "on" is "not-off", so the nonexistence of off causes the existence of on.
Why are you using the word ‘existence’ here?

It’s almost as if you can’t help but try to understand a relation in terms of existence.
a gutter rat looking at stars

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:06 am

Glostik91 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:03 am
What is the difference between existence and existence in the abstract? Abstract means a concept or an idea. If one is not allowed to conceive existence, then no one can recognize (much less challenge) if a thing exists.
Abstract -
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance.

Abstract is off on its own, distinct from everything else. The opposite is to be apart of something, which is relational.

Relative-
5. considered in relation to something else; comparative.
6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent.

So we have abstract and relative existence.

Now, suppose we say everything is god and there is nothing that is not god. God exists abstractly because he is all there is, so there is nothing to be relative to or be apart of. That's abstract existence and I posit that it makes no sense. Abstract existence = nonexistence because there is no place for god to exist since everything that exists is god. God would have an inside, but no outside.

(Btw, abstract existence is another implication of infinity, so it would seem infinity doesn't exist by the same logic (inside but no outside.))

Now suppose there is a god that is abstract from the universe in that he's off in his own world that is not connected to ours. Can we say that he exists? If he can't interact with us because he's cut off (abstract) from our universe, then how can we claim he exists in any meaningful way? What difference would it make? I could claim there are flying pigs in another universe, but so what? Alternatively, if god can interact with us, then he's not in his own universe, but part of ours, therefore he's not abstract.

Abstract existence has no meaning.
Do you think I am of the opinion that these things you're talking about are unfactual concerning the phone?
I didn't know, but you kept asserting that the phone is real in a tangible and sense, so I wanted to paint a more accurate picture. There could be those reading along as well.
How do any of these things disprove the fact that the phone looks black or that the phone feels hard or that the phone can be used to make calls?
Yes, those things exists relative to you because you call those things into existence by having eyes, skin, and a brain.

If a phone rings in the woods, but there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It makes pressure waves through the air, but sounds require ears to hear and a brain to generate the experience of sound.
You’re saying that these things don’t exist, that the idea (abstraction) that these things exist is gibberish (meaningless). If that’s the case then what word ought I use here to designate these things? (the existent and nonexistent things I listed.)
I'm curious how you began equating "abstraction" with "idea". Probably because you spend a lot of time thinking outside the box, so those ideas could be known as abstractions. Not all ideas are abstractions though. Maybe sudden ideas (epiphanies) are abstractions from the "known". Interesting topic!

Diebert, do you see how communication can be muddled depending on personality and probably geographic location? That's why I find many disagreements can be traced back to a disagreement of definitions.
I suppose that is correct. Can "on" exist by itself or is it relational to "off"? Do we need to verify that or is it a priori? In fact, it's by definition since "on" is "not-off", so the nonexistence of off causes the existence of on.
Why are you using the word ‘existence’ here?

It’s almost as if you can’t help but try to understand a relation in terms of existence.
Yeah I can't help it because "on" exists only relative to "off". How could "on" exist abstractly?

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:07 am

I just happened to stumble upon this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkXL_0SqPbA

FWD to 47:45

Is it real or is it not real?

When an oriental says "for something that is not real" the first thing he means is "it's not permanent". And so the quality of change of the smoke-like and that, they say, the dream-like because the dream vanishes, you see, and so they say "life is like a dream".

As you get older, you're more and more aware of the speed at which things change. With a child, it seems to be slow; children easily get bored, but as you get older, life is a like bzzzzp! Especially if you live in California where you can't keep a steady mailing list for more than two months because every two months a quarter of the addresses change lol. And, you know, the bulldozers come in and they change the shape of everything; knock down all the old buildings and up go new ones and then they get knocked down or they're so jerry-built that they fall apart, but there it goes, you see, and so there is this quality, he means, the "dream-like"; the thing is in constant flux, but he also means "illusion" in showing the extent to which what is going on in this flux is a creation of the perceiving organism.

So that by "illusion" the oriental also means "relative" as in the relationship between the air vibrations in the ear, between the cloud, the Sun, and the observer these things produce rainbow, sound, and so on, but these are "relative reality" and so when Buddhists used the word "void", "Sunyata", in sanskrit as designating the nature of the world, this should rather be translated "relativity" than "nothingness".

The great scholar strugatsky (sp?) made this very plain: it is relativity that we should think of rather than our ideas of non-being. So from that point of view, as also from the standpoint of quantum mechanics and modern physics, the illusory nature of the world is very clear. It was so much so that one physicist, who was a little daft, used to go round in the most enormous padded shoes for the fear of dropping through the atomic structure of the floor lol.


I searched wikipedia's "sunyata" page and found no instance of "relative". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

Alan Watts was best known as an interpreter and populariser of Eastern philosophy for a Western audience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

So who is right? I find that interesting.

Alan continues:

Why is there an objection to this? Well, one's been taught to object because you've been taught to identify with a solid side of the picture and to dis-identify with the empty side of the picture, but you've been hoaxed and fooled because YOU, when you die, are not, as it were, gulped-up by thin air; you're just as much the thin air as anything else.

Anyway, this seemed to fit the topic, so I thought I'd drop it off.

Glostik91
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:49 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:06 am
Abstract -
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance.

Abstract is off on its own, distinct from everything else. The opposite is to be apart of something, which is relational.

Relative-
5. considered in relation to something else; comparative.
6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent.

So we have abstract and relative existence.

Now, suppose we say everything is god and there is nothing that is not god. God exists abstractly because he is all there is, so there is nothing to be relative to or be apart of. That's abstract existence and I posit that it makes no sense. Abstract existence = nonexistence because there is no place for god to exist since everything that exists is god. God would have an inside, but no outside.

(Btw, abstract existence is another implication of infinity, so it would seem infinity doesn't exist by the same logic (inside but no outside.))

Now suppose there is a god that is abstract from the universe in that he's off in his own world that is not connected to ours. Can we say that he exists? If he can't interact with us because he's cut off (abstract) from our universe, then how can we claim he exists in any meaningful way? What difference would it make? I could claim there are flying pigs in another universe, but so what? Alternatively, if god can interact with us, then he's not in his own universe, but part of ours, therefore he's not abstract.

Abstract existence has no meaning.

I'm curious how you began equating "abstraction" with "idea". Probably because you spend a lot of time thinking outside the box, so those ideas could be known as abstractions. Not all ideas are abstractions though. Maybe sudden ideas (epiphanies) are abstractions from the "known". Interesting topic!

Diebert, do you see how communication can be muddled depending on personality and probably geographic location? That's why I find many disagreements can be traced back to a disagreement of definitions.
If you have ever read a scientific article, you will notice that at the beginning they will have something called an 'abstract'. Essentially what is meant by the word 'abstract' in this case and in normal conversation is an idea which gives a general understanding of what one wants to communicate.

I can give you a 'real life' example. The word tree is an abstraction. What is conjured in the mind upon reading the word tree is never comprehensive enough to account for all trees. Nevertheless, the word tree is useful and has meaning.

If I am not allowed to think about tree as a general idea or quality of concrete objects/specific objects, then how am I supposed to hold a view about trees?

If I am not allowed to think about existence as a general idea or quality of concrete objects/specific objects then how am I supposed to hold a view about existence?

You can't even get off the ground.
I didn't know, but you kept asserting that the phone is real in a tangible and sense, so I wanted to paint a more accurate picture. There could be those reading along as well.
It is real in a tangible sense. It is being perceived via touch right now as we speak!
Yes, those things exists relative to you because you call those things into existence by having eyes, skin, and a brain.

If a phone rings in the woods, but there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It makes pressure waves through the air, but sounds require ears to hear and a brain to generate the experience of sound.
And we perceive the qualities of the phone to be the same. (upon observation we both would recognize that the phone is black, hard, and can be used to make calls). This may not be the case, but I doubt it.

However what I know with 100% certainty concerning the case is that you and I understand the phone either exists or it doesn't exist (that the phone abides by a fundamental pure understanding which we must share.)
Yeah I can't help it because "on" exists only relative to "off". How could "on" exist abstractly?
You think it right to explain how one understands existence via relation. I think it right to explain how one understands relation via existence. Ultimately we are both right.

I do not reject that it is right to explain how one understands existence via relation. Yet for some reason you think it wrong to explain how one understands relation via existence?

And then you go on to use the words 'nonexistence' and 'existence' when trying to explain to me relation. (as you did here in this quotation)
I suppose that is correct. Can "on" exist by itself or is it relational to "off"? Do we need to verify that or is it a priori? In fact, it's by definition since "on" is "not-off", so the nonexistence of off causes the existence of on.
Why on earth would you spend time proving the uselessness of the word 'existence' to then use it in your very own definitions?!
a gutter rat looking at stars

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:39 am

Glostik91 wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:49 am
If you have ever read a scientific article, you will notice that at the beginning they will have something called an 'abstract'. Essentially what is meant by the word 'abstract' in this case and in normal conversation is an idea which gives a general understanding of what one wants to communicate.
Yes, words can have many definitions! Check out the variety:

Abstract

Adjective:
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse.
5. Fine Arts - of or relating to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., especially with reference to their relationship to one another.

Noun:
6. a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
7. something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Verb (used with object):

10. to draw or take away; remove.
11. to divert or draw away the attention of.
12. to steal.
13. to consider as a general quality or characteristic apart from specific objects or instances.
14. to make an abstract of; summarize.

Idioms:
15. abstract away from, to omit from consideration.
16.in the abstract, without reference to a specific object or instance; in theory.


You're comparing my usage as an adjective to that of a noun. The point of conversation is to convey concepts and transmit an idea from one head into another head with minimal loses in fidelity; not argue about definitions in order to distract from the communicative goal. This development is exactly what I was on about here viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7684&p=159058#p159053

I say "existence in the abstract doesn't make sense." You say I used the wrong word. Ok, in the interest of congeniality, let's pick another word that means "not relative" and means the same thing as the first two definitions of "abstract" in the dictionary. I won't quibble about words, but it seems like a trivial objection and smells a lot like a red herring :)
I can give you a 'real life' example. The word tree is an abstraction. What is conjured in the mind upon reading the word tree is never comprehensive enough to account for all trees. Nevertheless, the word tree is useful and has meaning.
So "tree" in this case is a noun and is definition #8 (maybe #7).
If I am not allowed to think about tree as a general idea or quality of concrete objects/specific objects, then how am I supposed to hold a view about trees?
You are allowed.
If I am not allowed to think about existence as a general idea or quality of concrete objects/specific objects then how am I supposed to hold a view about existence?
You are allowed. A tree exists as part of the universe. A tree exists as a quality of the universe. A tree exists relative to the universe, not abstract from it.
I didn't know, but you kept asserting that the phone is real in a tangible and sense, so I wanted to paint a more accurate picture. There could be those reading along as well.
It is real in a tangible sense. It is being perceived via touch right now as we speak!
So if I perceive a ghost, then the ghost is real? Any hallucination defaults to becoming real on the basis of perception? Wait, but the phone is objectively verifiable. So if an entire audience witnesses a magician cutting a woman in half, then it really happened?

What is real? Remember the matrix movie?

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

Hallucinations can be just as real as your phone and objective verification doesn't necessarily add credibility. Ultimately, nothing is real because everything is an aspect of something else.
However what I know with 100% certainty concerning the case is that you and I understand the phone either exists or it doesn't exist (that the phone abides by a fundamental pure understanding which we must share.)
I agree that the phone exists relative to us, but take it outside the universe and it would not exist because it would have no gluon field to generate the quarks that make the atoms in the phone. So the phone is an aspect of an energy field and therefore it doesn't exist in the abstract sense of existing. In the relational sense of existing, yes, it exists.
Yeah I can't help it because "on" exists only relative to "off". How could "on" exist abstractly?
You think it right to explain how one understands existence via relation. I think it right to explain how one understands relation via existence. Ultimately we are both right.
Wow that's interesting lol! Good observation! I totally didn't see that we are two aspects of one duality. I haven't given it much thought yet, but I'm inclined to agree with you simply because reality is likely not as easy to understand as either of us are making it out to be.
I do not reject that it is right to explain how one understands existence via relation. Yet for some reason you think it wrong to explain how one understands relation via existence?
Well, I have trouble imagining something existing abstractly... that is, not being an aspect of something else. I understand your point that something has to exist abstractly in order for there to be relativity, but I can't get my head around how it could exist in that fashion. To me, it would have to be a part of a bigger-something.

So if the phone is an aspect of an energy field, then what is that field an aspect of? And what's that an aspect of? Does it go to infinity or is it circular? Or is there one thing that abstractly exists upon which everything else depends? If there is, I can't imagine it.
And then you go on to use the words 'nonexistence' and 'existence' when trying to explain to me relation. (as you did here in this quotation)
Language isn't perfect. Words define other words and using words necessitates some circular reasoning, unfortunately. But the concepts underlying the words are not circular.

For example, "objective" means "impartial". Impartial means unbiased. Unbiased means unprejudiced. Unprejudiced means objective. It goes in circles and is the basis for the "Vish" game (google it... I've exhausted my 3 allowed links for this post)

So you have to use a bit of "good sportsmanship" by cutting me some slack in discerning what I'm trying to convey when I say "this can only exist relative to that." I suspect you know what I'm meaning, but are quibbling about formalities.
I suppose that is correct. Can "on" exist by itself or is it relational to "off"? Do we need to verify that or is it a priori? In fact, it's by definition since "on" is "not-off", so the nonexistence of off causes the existence of on.
Why on earth would you spend time proving the uselessness of the word 'existence' to then use it in your very own definitions?!
I didn't mean to suggest the word existence is useless, but only that it is relative.

The point of the yin/yang is to show that if everything were white, then white would not exist. White only exists relative to the black. So then white does not exist abstractly, but is a relation. Existence itself is relational.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:57 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:10 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:21 pm
My point was that to require proof or rationale for simultaneous existence and nonexistence as a possibility is not different than requiring proof for the possibility of some pure exclusivity of the binary state: to exist or not.
In that case I thank you for bringing the thought-provoking binary analogy up for consideration, but I can't, for the life of me, imagine how a thing can both exist and not exist in the same frame of spacial and temporal reference. Since you are the author of this novel idea, can you offer anything to help me understand? It is possible that I can both understand and not understand at the same time? If so, I must be focusing on the latter ;)
Nothing really exists or ceases to exist (or both, or neither) in itself. You're correct that nothing can both exist and not exist at an exact time and place, but that is a logical deduction and thus cannot be explained, demonstrated, imagined etc any further without repeating oneself.

It is also a logical deduction that a thing "x" is caused to exist at an exact time and place by the non-existence of everything else "y" at that same exact time and place, so x's existence is nothing more than y's non-existence and ultimately x's nonexistence as well, since y exists at an exact time and place only because x doesn't exist there. In fact, both x and y exist or don't exist (or both or neither) solely because of the sum of x and y, which I like to call the "All". The All cannot be explained, demonstrated, imagined etc any further without repeating oneself.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 am

jupiviv wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:57 am
Nothing really exists or ceases to exist (or both, or neither) in itself. You're correct that nothing can both exist and not exist at an exact time and place, but that is a logical deduction and thus cannot be explained, demonstrated, imagined etc any further without repeating oneself.

It is also a logical deduction that a thing "x" is caused to exist at an exact time and place by the non-existence of everything else "y" at that same exact time and place, so x's existence is nothing more than y's non-existence and ultimately x's nonexistence as well, since y exists at an exact time and place only because x doesn't exist there. In fact, both x and y exist or don't exist (or both or neither) solely because of the sum of x and y, which I like to call the "All". The All cannot be explained, demonstrated, imagined etc any further without repeating oneself.
So it's like + and - where one is merely the lack of the other?
On is lack of off and off is lack of on.
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
Etc.

This reminds me of the Thomson's Lamp (about 1/3 down the page.) At the end of 2 mins, the lamp is both on and off, which makes no sense unless the filament in the bulb is in the middle of the process of illuminating or extinguishing, in which case that still counts as being on; just not as bright as full-on. There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.

Is the "All" the same as nonduality?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:36 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 am
So it's like + and - where one is merely the lack of the other?
Correct.
On is lack of off and off is lack of on.
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
Etc.
The second assertion is false, since false things are unreal to begin with.
At the end of 2 mins, the lamp is both on and off, which makes no sense unless the filament in the bulb is in the middle of the process of illuminating or extinguishing, in which case that still counts as being on; just not as bright as full-on. There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
You are thinking of a thing's status of existence/non-existence as a thing all by itself, which can then be explicated/demonstrated/etc. This is useful only in the case of empirical things, where what is defined as one thing can also be defined as many things or even nothing, as required/obligated by observation or error or convenience. In the context of a purely logical proposition like mine, the above cannot apply since the definition of a thing cannot be changed without changing the proposition itself.
Is the "All" the same as nonduality?
Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't give a wise definition of nonduality. Nonduality isn't about one consciousness, or one anything. It is both the creator and the sum of all duality.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:22 am

jupiviv wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:36 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 am
So it's like + and - where one is merely the lack of the other?
Correct.
On is lack of off and off is lack of on.
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
Etc.
The second assertion is false, since false things are unreal to begin with.
But you said "so x's existence is nothing more than y's non-existence..."

What's the difference between "false", "unreal", "non-existence"?

Let's say Trump is president and he's a democrat. That's not a true statement because it contains an element of falsehood. So, in order to make it true, it must be a total lack of falsity. The statement is not entirely false either since Trump is indeed president, so to make the statement false, it would need to be a total lack of truth.

Trump is a democrat. That's a false statement because it contains no truth.

___________________. That's not a false statement because it's not a statement. So it seems a falsehood is really a thing; it's a statement that contains no truth.
At the end of 2 mins, the lamp is both on and off, which makes no sense unless the filament in the bulb is in the middle of the process of illuminating or extinguishing, in which case that still counts as being on; just not as bright as full-on. There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
You are thinking of a thing's status of existence/non-existence as a thing all by itself, which can then be explicated/demonstrated/etc. This is useful only in the case of empirical things, where what is defined as one thing can also be defined as many things or even nothing, as required/obligated by observation or error or convenience. In the context of a purely logical proposition like mine, the above cannot apply since the definition of a thing cannot be changed without changing the proposition itself.
It appears you're making a distinction between logic and reality and isn't that therefore fantasizing logic? Or are you alternatively suggesting the empirical is the fantasy and the logic that is distinct from the fantasy is therefore the reality? If so, then the proposition must be taken on faith since it cannot be demonstrated, correct? On what authority should that faith be predicated?
Is the "All" the same as nonduality?
Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't give a wise definition of nonduality. Nonduality isn't about one consciousness, or one anything. It is both the creator and the sum of all duality.
Yes, wikipedia sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

So, the nondual isn't one because one excludes many. It isn't nothing because nothing excludes something. So it's neti neti... not this, not that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.

Ok, so if the nondual is expressed by contrasting to what it is not, then it's a duality of nondual/not-nondual or, simplifying terms, nondual/dual. Every inside must have an outside.

Going further, since everything that exists can only exist in terms of what it is not, then what exists is a duality, so we define the nondual as the summation of the duality. -1 + 1 = 0 where zero is not nothing, but the combination or summation of -1 and 1. So the sum of all numbers and, in fact all duality, can be represented by 0, which isn't nothing, but everything. But 0 must also have an opposite, and what is that? Infinity because that is the only concept remaining. So everything that exists, the sum of all dualities, is contrasted by what does not exist, which is the infinite. What do you think?

You may like this video called Imagining the "Zeroth" Dimension https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emlcwyvnsg0

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:00 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:22 am
jupiviv wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:36 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 am
So it's like + and - where one is merely the lack of the other?
Correct.
On is lack of off and off is lack of on.
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
Etc.
The second assertion is false, since false things are unreal to begin with.
But you said "so x's existence is nothing more than y's non-existence..."

What's the difference between "false", "unreal", "non-existence"?
I said that x is nonexistent wherever y is. If non-existence is defined as "nonexistent absolutely everywhere", then it would be identical in meaning to "false" and "unreal", as I define them.
___________________. That's not a false statement because it's not a statement. So it seems a falsehood is really a thing; it's a statement that contains no truth.
Well, I assumed you were implying that truth and falsity are things:
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
As opposed to true and false *statements*. A true/false statement is not the same as the truth/falsity of a statement.
You are thinking of a thing's status of existence/non-existence as a thing all by itself, which can then be explicated/demonstrated/etc. This is useful only in the case of empirical things, where what is defined as one thing can also be defined as many things or even nothing, as required/obligated by observation or error or convenience. In the context of a purely logical proposition like mine, the above cannot apply since the definition of a thing cannot be changed without changing the proposition itself.
It appears you're making a distinction between logic and reality and isn't that therefore fantasizing logic? Or are you alternatively suggesting the empirical is the fantasy and the logic that is distinct from the fantasy is therefore the reality? If so, then the proposition must be taken on faith since it cannot be demonstrated, correct? On what authority should that faith be predicated?
I'm distinguishing between abstract and empirical things. To go back to your original comment:
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
These are empirical definitions which are valid unless logically inconceivable, but even if logically conceivable they are only valid for specific instances/contexts. In the case of a lamp being on, off, half-on etc., any supposed contradiction between those states is irrelevant to whether there is a contradiction between the existence and nonexistence of logical entities like "x" or "y", which represent *all* finite things.
So, the nondual isn't one because one excludes many. It isn't nothing because nothing excludes something. So it's neti neti... not this, not that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.
That definition falsely assumes that awareness can be non-conceptual. Our purpose should be to negate all false rationalizations and consider whatever is left to be holy and pure, even if "this and that" from the leftovers seem to corrupt whatever concepts or awareness we might have, or just make us feel sad or disappointed.
Ok, so if the nondual is expressed by contrasting to what it is not, then it's a duality of nondual/not-nondual or, simplifying terms, nondual/dual. Every inside must have an outside.
Nonduality *is* duality. It doesn't "contain" any duality or nonduality.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:39 am

jupiviv wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:00 am
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:22 am
jupiviv wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:36 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 am
On is lack of off and off is lack of on.
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
Etc.
The second assertion is false, since false things are unreal to begin with.
But you said "so x's existence is nothing more than y's non-existence..."

What's the difference between "false", "unreal", "non-existence"?
I said that x is nonexistent wherever y is. If non-existence is defined as "nonexistent absolutely everywhere", then it would be identical in meaning to "false" and "unreal", as I define them.
Oh I see. You're making a distinction between absolute nonexistence and local nonexistence. False and unreal are absolutely nonexistent. I can see how that would be a useful distinction in conversation.
___________________. That's not a false statement because it's not a statement. So it seems a falsehood is really a thing; it's a statement that contains no truth.
Well, I assumed you were implying that truth and falsity are things:
True is lack of false and false is lack of true.
As opposed to true and false *statements*.
Haha I like how you defined "things" in terms of "what they are not" by using the "as opposed to" language. Neti neti :)

So, why are statements not things? Things are "thinks" in that they are merely concepts and concepts are what statements express. So truth, then, is a property of a concept. A property is a thing because a property is also a concept. So truth is a concept of a concept.
A true/false statement is not the same as the truth/falsity of a statement.
I suppose so, but I don't see the usefulness in that distinction. All you're saying is a concept is not the same as the concept of a concept which is merely stating the obvious, as in:

A statement is not the same as the truth/falsity of a statement. (The qualifiers "true/false" are not needed because a statement is a statement regardless if it's true or false.)
You are thinking of a thing's status of existence/non-existence as a thing all by itself, which can then be explicated/demonstrated/etc. This is useful only in the case of empirical things, where what is defined as one thing can also be defined as many things or even nothing, as required/obligated by observation or error or convenience. In the context of a purely logical proposition like mine, the above cannot apply since the definition of a thing cannot be changed without changing the proposition itself.
It appears you're making a distinction between logic and reality and isn't that therefore fantasizing logic? Or are you alternatively suggesting the empirical is the fantasy and the logic that is distinct from the fantasy is therefore the reality? If so, then the proposition must be taken on faith since it cannot be demonstrated, correct? On what authority should that faith be predicated?
I'm distinguishing between abstract and empirical things. To go back to your original comment:
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
These are empirical definitions which are valid unless logically inconceivable, but even if logically conceivable they are only valid for specific instances/contexts. In the case of a lamp being on, off, half-on etc., any supposed contradiction between those states is irrelevant to whether there is a contradiction between the existence and nonexistence of logical entities like "x" or "y", which represent *all* finite things.
I'm still thinking you're thinking logic is somehow outside the universe and outside the realm of observation, and if that is so, then I must continue to maintain that faith is required to hold that stance because there is no observation or deduction to lead to that end.

I don't see a difference in what I see empirically and what I see logically. The validity of 2+2=4 appears in my mind just like the validity of a tree appears when I look at it. So you say "x and y represent all finite things". Ok, I conceptualize it in my brain and then you say my conceptualization of that is somehow different from my conceptualization of pregnancy because one is observed and the other isn't, but I don't see the difference. It makes no difference if the information entering my head is by observation or deduction. I only have one viewpoint... is it real and true or is it not? How do you see it differently?

I mean, electromagnetic radiation enters my eye and jiggles some charges which causes some electrons to whiz towards my brain where some hocus pocus happens and I proclaim "Ah, there is a thing!" Whether that radiation comes from a tree or from an LED screen containing text you wrote makes no difference to me. It's all input, processing, and is an artifact of the happenings inside this universe which are observed.

The empirical and the logical are analogous to the natural and artificial wherein the distinction is artificial and illogical.
So, the nondual isn't one because one excludes many. It isn't nothing because nothing excludes something. So it's neti neti... not this, not that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.
That definition falsely assumes that awareness can be non-conceptual.
You're right and I saw that, but didn't think it was a big deal since it was beside the point that I was conveying. Basically I saw it as "The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions blah blah blah blah of reality."

A painter adds material to the canvas while a sculptor removes material from stone which are antipodal ways of displaying concepts.
Our purpose should be to negate all false rationalizations and consider whatever is left to be holy and pure, even if "this and that" from the leftovers seem to corrupt whatever concepts or awareness we might have, or just make us feel sad or disappointed.
What does pure mean? All yang and no yin?
Ok, so if the nondual is expressed by contrasting to what it is not, then it's a duality of nondual/not-nondual or, simplifying terms, nondual/dual. Every inside must have an outside.
Nonduality *is* duality. It doesn't "contain" any duality or nonduality.
What I meant by "every inside must have an outside" wasn't that nonduality contains anything, but that if it does have an inside, it must also have an outside. In other words, nondual can't be a singularity because in order exist, it has to be contrasted to something... "as opposed to" something.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:26 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:39 am
A true/false statement is not the same as the truth/falsity of a statement.
I suppose so, but I don't see the usefulness in that distinction. All you're saying is a concept is not the same as the concept of a concept which is merely stating the obvious, as in:
I don't understand your point. Why are you identifying statements with the presence or lack of truth, falsity or concepts in statements? A statement is a series of words, and in that sense is a thing regardless of whether it is meaningful, true or false.
I'm still thinking you're thinking logic is somehow outside the universe and outside the realm of observation, and if that is so, then I must continue to maintain that faith is required to hold that stance because there is no observation or deduction to lead to that end.
Logic cannot be proven, but it doesn't follow from this that it is outside the universe. Rather, logic is how the universe is experienced.
I don't see a difference in what I see empirically and what I see logically.
Firstly, when I say logical things I mean *abstract* things. Empirical and logical/abstract things are different in the sense that the former require sensory data and the latter do not. Logic applies to both in the same way. With that in mind, this was your comment:
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
You are presumably defining on, off, pregnant & non-pregnant as empirical entities, so this is incorrect. The distinction between those things is not absolute, and open to error and change. There is no way to determine the exact on and off state of all lamps, or the exact time at which those states occur, or even the exact number of lamps. On the other hand, if on and off were logical entities or categories that were a priori distinct from each other, they would not apply directly to empirical entities like lamps, which have many other properties and belong to many other categories.

To return to the question of existence and nonexistence - both empirical and abstract things exist or don't exist, or have properties, only in relation to each other. In relation to the All, their existence, nonexistence and whatever else is irrelevant. They are whatever the All makes them.
Our purpose should be to negate all false rationalizations and consider whatever is left to be holy and pure, even if "this and that" from the leftovers seem to corrupt whatever concepts or awareness we might have, or just make us feel sad or disappointed.
What does pure mean? All yang and no yin?
"Yin and yang" is just another way of saying "x and y". It could also be "x, y and z" or "Ho, Lee and Fuk".
In other words, nondual can't be a singularity because in order exist, it has to be contrasted to something... "as opposed to" something.
Nonduality is everything, so there is nothing it can be contrasted with.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:57 am

jupiviv wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:26 pm
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:39 am
A true/false statement is not the same as the truth/falsity of a statement.
I suppose so, but I don't see the usefulness in that distinction. All you're saying is a concept is not the same as the concept of a concept which is merely stating the obvious, as in:
I don't understand your point. Why are you identifying statements with the presence or lack of truth, falsity or concepts in statements? A statement is a series of words, and in that sense is a thing regardless of whether it is meaningful, true or false.
Here is a series of words: tree over red don't pig but to of.
Here is a statement.

A statement is more than a series of words; it is a concept that conveys a concept with the property of a concept (where conveyance and property are also concepts, so we could say it is a concept that concepts a concept with the concept of a concept).

A statement is a thing because it is a series of words. It is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information. The truthfulness of that statement is a property of the statement and also a thing, which is also a concept because a thing is a think. There are several orders of concepts packaged into a string of words.
I'm still thinking you're thinking logic is somehow outside the universe and outside the realm of observation, and if that is so, then I must continue to maintain that faith is required to hold that stance because there is no observation or deduction to lead to that end.
Logic cannot be proven, but it doesn't follow from this that it is outside the universe. Rather, logic is how the universe is experienced.
How do you know logic is how the universe is experienced?
I don't see a difference in what I see empirically and what I see logically.
Firstly, when I say logical things I mean *abstract* things. Empirical and logical/abstract things are different in the sense that the former require sensory data and the latter do not. Logic applies to both in the same way.
We went over the definition of abstract a few posts up: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7688&start=25#p159147

Abstract -
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance.

Abstract is off on its own, distinct from everything else. The opposite is to be apart of something, which is relational.


So you say
Logic cannot be proven, but it doesn't follow from this that it is outside the universe.
and then
Firstly, when I say logical things I mean *abstract* things.
Maybe you have a different definition for abstract in mind?

So you have this concept called logic that you say cannot be proven or observed and is abstract, but is how we experience the universe and none of that has anything to do with faith.

For me, logic is observable because I see it... I see what you're saying. Do you see what I mean? Everything is observable because to observe is to conceptualize in an effort to understand what you're seeing and it doesn't matter if you're looking at a tree or trying to figure out if what I'm saying makes any sense. Do you see? I know logic exists because I see it.
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
You are presumably defining on, off, pregnant & non-pregnant as empirical entities, so this is incorrect. The distinction between those things is not absolute, and open to error and change. There is no way to determine the exact on and off state of all lamps, or the exact time at which those states occur, or even the exact number of lamps. On the other hand, if on and off were logical entities or categories that were a priori distinct from each other, they would not apply directly to empirical entities like lamps, which have many other properties and belong to many other categories.
Maybe the problem is the presumption. If the current in the circuit is flowing, the state is on, else off. It doesn't matter how many lamps or if the lamps are actually emitting light.

The logical abstract setup doesn't reflect reality because the switch can be logically opened faster than the speed of light, which isn't logical because it isn't empirical and so that thought experiment is useless.

What is useful is to model reality logically and say that when the switch is close to being closed, the current will start jumping the gap when the resistance is low enough for it to begin doing so and from that point the current will flow until the switch is opened far enough that the resistance is too much for the voltage. At some speed of switching, the spring that closes the switch won't have time to overcome the inertia of the switch before the switch is switched off again and then nothing will happen; whatever state was previous will continue until the switching speed is lowered. All that is logical and empirical and useful in reality.

Abstract logical thought experiments may or may not model reality.
To return to the question of existence and nonexistence - both empirical and abstract things exist or don't exist, or have properties, only in relation to each other. In relation to the All, their existence, nonexistence and whatever else is irrelevant. They are whatever the All makes them.
That seems ALLright :)
Our purpose should be to negate all false rationalizations and consider whatever is left to be holy and pure, even if "this and that" from the leftovers seem to corrupt whatever concepts or awareness we might have, or just make us feel sad or disappointed.
What does pure mean? All yang and no yin?
"Yin and yang" is just another way of saying "x and y". It could also be "x, y and z" or "Ho, Lee and Fuk".
Yin and yang are saying we can't have one without the other therefore purity can't exist if that's how purity is defined. We could separate the two and have pure yang and pure yin, but they will have a shared boundary. But to have all yang without the existence of yin is impossible. It's like having a front with no back or heads with no tails.
In other words, nondual can't be a singularity because in order exist, it has to be contrasted to something... "as opposed to" something.
Nonduality is everything, so there is nothing it can be contrasted with.
It can be contrasted to what it is not. If there is nothing that it is not, then it has an inside, but no outside and how is that possible?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2376
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:42 am

Serendipper, as I understand the definition of 'abstract' you provided, it is not defining abstract concepts as being apart as in 'outside' concrete concepts, rather that abstract concepts are apart from concrete concepts in the sense of being distinct from or different from concrete concepts.

Abstract concepts are concepts that cannot be empirically observed or heard or tasted or smelled or touched (hence their difference from concrete concepts).. They can be purely mathematical or be meaning related such as the ones I mentioned in another post: integrity, joy, love, reasoning, etc. Perhaps the most abstract concept of all is 'awareness'. You can't see awareness or smell awareness or taste or hear or touch awareness but clearly awareness 'is '. Is your awareness related / connected to concrete things? Obviously yes because you are aware of the screen upon which these words are typed.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:28 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:42 am
Serendipper, as I understand the definition of 'abstract' you provided, it is not defining abstract concepts as being apart as in 'outside' concrete concepts, rather that abstract concepts are apart from concrete concepts in the sense of being distinct from or different from concrete concepts.
Isn't distinct and different the same as outside? Mutually exclusive?
Abstract concepts are concepts that cannot be empirically observed or heard or tasted or smelled or touched (hence their difference from concrete concepts).. They can be purely mathematical or be meaning related such as the ones I mentioned in another post: integrity, joy, love, reasoning, etc.
But do those things exist?

There was a faith healer of deal
Who said although I know pain is not real
When the tip of a pin punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.

All those things you mentioned, including math, are constructs of imagination and are only real if observed by the mind, right?
Perhaps the most abstract concept of all is 'awareness'. You can't see awareness or smell awareness or taste or hear or touch awareness but clearly awareness 'is '. Is your awareness related / connected to concrete things? Obviously yes because you are aware of the screen upon which these words are typed.
But awareness is a function of concrete things, so it's not an abstract concept because we need concrete senses in order to be aware of anything.

I'm just saying there is no difference between sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, and deduction. The difference is artificial in order to pedestalize logic.

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's true or useful. It was logical to assume humans would have more genes than an ear of corn, but it wasn't true. We were hallucinating like with this optical illusion:

Image

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:03 am

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:57 am
A statement is more than a series of words; it is a concept that conveys a concept with the property of a concept (where conveyance and property are also concepts, so we could say it is a concept that concepts a concept with the concept of a concept).
You've lost me here. A concept that conveys a concept is basically just the conveyed concept.
A statement is a thing because it is a series of words. It is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information.
A series of words only conveys concepts or information to someone who expresses or understands them, so the words themselves don't convey or contain any concepts or information.
How do you know logic is how the universe is experienced?
Because I would have to use logic to aver that it isn't experienced logically.
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance.

Abstract is off on its own, distinct from everything else. The opposite is to be apart of something, which is relational.


So you say
Logic cannot be proven, but it doesn't follow from this that it is outside the universe.
and then
Firstly, when I say logical things I mean *abstract* things.
Maybe you have a different definition for abstract in mind?
My definition is identical to yours (in italics) except for the last sentence. Abstract entities are a part of causality like everything else.
So you have this concept called logic that you say cannot be proven or observed and is abstract, but is how we experience the universe and none of that has anything to do with faith.
I didn't say that logic is a concept. I have no problem with saying that one must believe in logic, provided one knows what that means.
For me, logic is observable because I see it... I see what you're saying. Do you see what I mean? Everything is observable because to observe is to conceptualize in an effort to understand what you're seeing and it doesn't matter if you're looking at a tree or trying to figure out if what I'm saying makes any sense. Do you see? I know logic exists because I see it.
You cannot use logic to observe logic for the same reason you can't use logic to prove logic's existence/truth/etc.
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
You are presumably defining on, off, pregnant & non-pregnant as empirical entities, so this is incorrect. The distinction between those things is not absolute, and open to error and change. There is no way to determine the exact on and off state of all lamps, or the exact time at which those states occur, or even the exact number of lamps. On the other hand, if on and off were logical entities or categories that were a priori distinct from each other, they would not apply directly to empirical entities like lamps, which have many other properties and belong to many other categories.
Maybe the problem is the presumption. If the current in the circuit is flowing, the state is on, else off. It doesn't matter how many lamps or if the lamps are actually emitting light.

The logical abstract setup doesn't reflect reality because the switch can be logically opened faster than the speed of light, which isn't logical because it isn't empirical and so that thought experiment is useless.
Firstly, not being empirical doesn't make something illogical. Anything that can be conceived logically is logical. The usefulness of the conception is a different issue. Secondly, the definitions you provided for the states of on and off for a lamp will not apply uniformly to all things, let alone all lamps or circuits. Therefore, they are not analogous to my definitions of "existence" and "non-existence" which do apply uniformly to all things. A lamp may be defined as more than a circuit, and a circuit as more than something with current flowing through it (like a block of copper). Nor is "current flowing" a universal and uniform concept. Again, none of these definitions are illogical in themselves, but it is illogical to consider different definitions identical.

I originally said that a thing's existence/nonexistence aren't separate from the thing itself unless they are properties of specific things (and hence, are themselves things with existence/nonexistence). The point is that your rebuttal indicating the impossibility of a half-on lamp is moot in the former context. In the original comment, I wasn't talking about x or y being a combination of the properties "exist" and "don't exist", but rather about how the existence and nonexistence of x and y (=finite things) are intertwined and not inherent to either.
Yin and yang are saying we can't have one without the other therefore purity can't exist if that's how purity is defined. We could separate the two and have pure yang and pure yin, but they will have a shared boundary. But to have all yang without the existence of yin is impossible. It's like having a front with no back or heads with no tails.
I agree, but would add that the deeper meaning is that nonduality is the same as duality.
Nonduality is everything, so there is nothing it can be contrasted with.
It can be contrasted to what it is not. If there is nothing that it is not, then it has an inside, but no outside and how is that possible?
Inside and outside are things, so cannot define the sum of all things.

Serendipper
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:06 am

jupiviv wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:03 am
Serendipper wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:57 am
A statement is more than a series of words; it is a concept that conveys a concept with the property of a concept (where conveyance and property are also concepts, so we could say it is a concept that concepts a concept with the concept of a concept).
You've lost me here. A concept that conveys a concept is basically just the conveyed concept.
Yes, it basically is. Like 2a + 2b is basically 2(a+b) or 3/6 is basically 1/2. I was just illustrating the many orders of concepts within a statement.
A statement is a thing because it is a series of words. It is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information.
A series of words only conveys concepts or information to someone who expresses or understands them, so the words themselves don't convey or contain any concepts or information.
That's not true. I can't presume to understand the language you understand; I can only talk in the language I understand and leave it to you to decipher what I meant.
How do you know logic is how the universe is experienced?
Because I would have to use logic to aver that it isn't experienced logically.
But you aren't required to know the universe is experienced logically in order to have an experience, so how do you know the universe is experienced logically? And if that is how it is experienced, then logic is defined by experience and there is no such thing as "a priori".
My definition is identical to yours (in italics) except for the last sentence. Abstract entities are a part of causality like everything else.
Then abstract entities aren't abstract.
So you have this concept called logic that you say cannot be proven or observed and is abstract, but is how we experience the universe and none of that has anything to do with faith.
I didn't say that logic is a concept. I have no problem with saying that one must believe in logic, provided one knows what that means.
Faith is the evidence for what cannot be empirically observed and if logic cannot be observed, then it's religion. Is that right?
For me, logic is observable because I see it... I see what you're saying. Do you see what I mean? Everything is observable because to observe is to conceptualize in an effort to understand what you're seeing and it doesn't matter if you're looking at a tree or trying to figure out if what I'm saying makes any sense. Do you see? I know logic exists because I see it.
You cannot use logic to observe logic for the same reason you can't use logic to prove logic's existence/truth/etc.
Then when I observe logic, what am I using?
There is no such thing as half-on like there is no such thing as half-pregnant.
Firstly, not being empirical doesn't make something illogical. Anything that can be conceived logically is logical. The usefulness of the conception is a different issue.
It's the heart of the issue because if logic isn't always consistent with reality, then how can logic underpin reality?
Secondly, the definitions you provided for the states of on and off for a lamp will not apply uniformly to all things, let alone all lamps or circuits.
Why not? Either there is potential for current to flow (voltage) or there is not. It works for all circuits.
Therefore, they are not analogous to my definitions of "existence" and "non-existence" which do apply uniformly to all things.

And how do you know that?
A lamp may be defined as more than a circuit,
How? Candles? Even a candle is lit or it is not. We can't have a half-lit candle.
and a circuit as more than something with current flowing through it (like a block of copper). Nor is "current flowing" a universal and uniform concept.
1350-1400; Middle English < Latin circuitus, variant of circumitus circular motion, cycle. To be a circuit requires movement. It is universal.
I originally said that a thing's existence/nonexistence aren't separate from the thing itself unless they are properties of specific things (and hence, are themselves things with existence/nonexistence). The point is that your rebuttal indicating the impossibility of a half-on lamp is moot in the former context. In the original comment, I wasn't talking about x or y being a combination of the properties "exist" and "don't exist", but rather about how the existence and nonexistence of x and y (=finite things) are intertwined and not inherent to either.
That's a duality and I agree. Existence isn't inherent and abstract, but relational.
Yin and yang are saying we can't have one without the other therefore purity can't exist if that's how purity is defined. We could separate the two and have pure yang and pure yin, but they will have a shared boundary. But to have all yang without the existence of yin is impossible. It's like having a front with no back or heads with no tails.
I agree, but would add that the deeper meaning is that nonduality is the same as duality.
Because of its codependent origination: dual/nondual?
It can be contrasted to what it is not. If there is nothing that it is not, then it has an inside, but no outside and how is that possible?
Inside and outside are things, so cannot define the sum of all things.
Is the complete absence of everything a thing? If so, then what is not a thing? As soon as we try to imagine anything, it becomes a thing because things are thinks. Things do not exist in nature; only in imagination.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:54 am

Serendipper wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:06 am
You've lost me here. A concept that conveys a concept is basically just the conveyed concept.
Yes, it basically is. Like 2a + 2b is basically 2(a+b) or 3/6 is basically 1/2. I was just illustrating the many orders of concepts within a statement.
There are no "orders" of concepts, because that would just be a pleonasm. A statement which expresses a concept is neither that concept itself nor a different concept. If a statement is written or read, then the concept expressed or understood occurs in the mind of the writer or reader and not in the statement itself.
How do you know logic is how the universe is experienced?
Because I would have to use logic to aver that it isn't experienced logically.
But you aren't required to know the universe is experienced logically in order to have an experience, so how do you know the universe is experienced logically?
I defined the word "logic" to be "the way the universe is experienced", and asserted that there is only one way it can be experienced because even the idea of a "different type of experience" is necessarily experienced the same way everything else is experienced, and thus cannot really be experienced. Obviously anyone who experiences anything knows they are doing so, so your question doesn't make sense.
And if that is how it is experienced, then logic is defined by experience and there is no such thing as "a priori".
Logic isn't experienced; any act of experience is an instance of logic. The statement there is no such thing as "a priori" is a priori.
Therefore, they are not analogous to my definitions of "existence" and "non-existence" which do apply uniformly to all things.

And how do you know that?
As opposed to a circuit's voltage which occurs in a specific group of things in many different ways, my definitions of existence and nonexistence apply to all things in the same way. I know that is because I defined them as such. Unless you can find a fault in the definitions, you have no argument.
I originally said that a thing's existence/nonexistence aren't separate from the thing itself unless they are properties of specific things (and hence, are themselves things with existence/nonexistence). The point is that your rebuttal indicating the impossibility of a half-on lamp is moot in the former context. In the original comment, I wasn't talking about x or y being a combination of the properties "exist" and "don't exist", but rather about how the existence and nonexistence of x and y (=finite things) are intertwined and not inherent to either.
That's a duality and I agree. Existence isn't inherent and abstract, but relational.
Yes, but the relation isn't separate from what is being related. I am your relation to me, and you are my relation to you, and ultimately both I and you are each others relation to the All.
I agree, but would add that the deeper meaning is that nonduality is the same as duality.
Because of its codependent origination: dual/nondual?
The sum of all duality, or all codependent origination, is nonduality.
As soon as we try to imagine anything, it becomes a thing because things are thinks.
By this reasoning, our imagination is itself the think of another imagination, so it is really that imagination that is creating all thinks. In fact it just now created itself and me by imagining me imagining it as being the cause of my thinkomagination. Any objections or questions you may have regarding the above should therefore be forwarded to the appropriate thinkomaginatrix. As for myself, I dindu nuffin!

Post Reply