GENIUS FORUMS

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Jehu wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I disagree with that last sentence. It's not hard to describe how something is physically real. It is more likely that some philosophers will ignore the examples.

On what logical grounds do you assert that physical things are real? How exactly are you defining the term "real"? For if you are merely assuming physical things to be real, then you are are committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

No I use physics to determine that things are real. Not physics from myself, but the physics of infinity. Infinity describes physics as they are today. And because my mind is not infinite enough to create an entire Universe, especially all of the physics... and it also helps that nobody actually understands the physics that they are seeing. If physics were created by you for example, how come you are too dumb to understand them? Of course you would be created by me.

Ok so the question is how did I come up with the physics when I was 2 years old?

Ok so I was never 2 years old.

The physics of infinity I calculated by seeing certain relationships between actual events.

Cause and effect means that I had to see the events before I could calculate the physics. I was not going to start in blackness, and then calculate the physics required for infinity to self build a universe.

If I did self build the Universe I would have built it in a different way. because I had other ideas before this idea. I followed science first, and got completely messed up by Newton, and Einstein.

It is infinity that produces these physics.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Jehu wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I disagree with that last sentence. It's not hard to describe how something is physically real. It is more likely that some philosophers will ignore the examples.

On what logical grounds do you assert that physical things are real? How exactly are you defining the term "real"? For if you are merely assuming physical things to be real, then you are are committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

No I use physics to determine that things are real. Not physics from myself, but the physics of infinity. Infinity describes physics as they are today. And because my mind is not infinite enough to create an entire Universe, especially all of the physics... and it also helps that nobody actually understands the physics that they are seeing. If physics were created by you for example, how come you are too dumb to understand them? Of course you would be created by me.

Ok so the question is how did I come up with the physics when I was 2 years old?

Ok so I was never 2 years old.

The physics of infinity I calculated by seeing certain relationships between actual events.

Cause and effect means that I had to see the events before I could calculate the physics. I was not going to start in blackness, and then calculate the physics required for infinity to self build a universe.

If I did self build the Universe I would have built it in a different way. because I had other ideas before this idea. I followed science first, and got completely messed up by Newton, and Einstein.

It is infinity that produces these physics.

Do you live in a place where all sharp objects are kept away from you?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote::p Just because you haven't been wording it like that- all it means is 'of the mind only'.
Such as imaginations,dreams, visions. The only problem is that people differentiate between these and 'real experiences'.

As I said before, the “self” is that aspect of a thing that is real and that underlies its appearance or manifestation; in other words, it is the cause of the appearance (phenomenon).

Now, the Law of Excluded Middle tells us that there are only two possible ways in which a thing may be constituted, ...

either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or its is not; there being no intermediate alternative.

As I said before, p: the “self” is that aspect of a thing that is real and that underlies its appearance or manifestation; in other words, it is the cause of the appearance (phenomenon). Now, the Law of Excluded Middle tells us that there are only two possible ways in which a thing may be constituted, either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or its is not; there being no intermediate alternative. Furthermore, if a thing is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, then its causes must lie elsewhere, and be the properties of some other thing; for nothing can arise without a cause. ~p: Therefore, given that something that is devoid of any properties of its own cannot be real, but merely apparent, it follows that in order for a thing to be real, it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

Jehu wrote:If I tell you that I am in possession of a vehicle that has two wheels mounted one behind the other, a handle bar, a saddle seat, and is propelled by the action of a rider’s feet upon pedals, you will immediately recognize that I am speaking of a “bicycle”, for I have expressed the essential characteristics of a bicycle.

Leyla Shen wrote:Jehu,
One of us is terribly confused, I think.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is precisely the law that you are violating, here:

As I said before, the “self” is that aspect of a thing that is real and that underlies its appearance or manifestation; in other words, it is the cause of the appearance (phenomenon).

So, ^"p" (proposition)

Now, the Law of Excluded Middle tells us that there are only two possible ways in which a thing may be constituted, ...

It tells us that either the proposition is true, or its negation is. But p must be proved for it to hold.

either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or its is not; there being no intermediate alternative.

Which is to say, again, either p is true and its negation false, or p is false and its negation true.

So, are you making an argument for intrinsic cause/thing in itself, because you appear to be claiming both p and ~p are true in the same argument:

As I said before, p: the “self” is that aspect of a thing that is real and that underlies its appearance or manifestation; in other words, it is the cause of the appearance (phenomenon). Now, the Law of Excluded Middle tells us that there are only two possible ways in which a thing may be constituted, either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or its is not; there being no intermediate alternative. Furthermore, if a thing is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, then its causes must lie elsewhere, and be the properties of some other thing; for nothing can arise without a cause. ~p: Therefore, given that something that is devoid of any properties of its own cannot be real, but merely apparent, it follows that in order for a thing to be real, it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

Unless you would like to tell me more about the difference between "properties" and "intrinsic causes".

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Jehu wrote:If I tell you that I am in possession of a vehicle that has two wheels mounted one behind the other, a handle bar, a saddle seat, and is propelled by the action of a rider’s feet upon pedals, you will immediately recognize that I am speaking of a “bicycle”, for I have expressed the essential characteristics of a bicycle.

A bicycle, linguistically, is what sender and reciever already agreed upon to call it. There's nothing essential here about anything. If other forms or configurations would be agreed upon to call "bike" or "bicycle" then that's just as well. The agreement on how to name an item is always provisional and comtemporary. The "essental characteristic" is only what appears to be the idealic bike shape of two wheels and a saddle in this particular case in a brief moment of time, like a mirrage. But that's really void of any meaning. By itself the essential does not relay or contains anything.

My argument is that only those things that are possessed of their own intrinsic causes (i,e,. properties) may be rightfully called “things-in-themselves”.

Leyla Shen wrote:

My argument is that only those things that are possessed of their own intrinsic causes (i,e,. properties) may be rightfully called “things-in-themselves”.

Well, I disagree. I think you've been making a lot of assertions without presenting the supporting arguments.

So, let's just stick to the above.

You suggest:

1) There are things (A) with intrinsic causes
2) There are things (A) with extrinsic causes
3) Only things which are intrinsically caused (contain properties of their own) are real
3) Therefore, anything (A) which has external causes is not real

Can you give me some examples of (1) and (2), please.

For instance, does a cake cause itself and therefore qualify as "real" or is it caused and therefore "not real"? Or perhaps you are saying it only becomes real at a certain point in a causal chain?

Because the Law of Identity decrees that each thing must have a definite set of characteristics,

...it follows logically that, for any given thing, every conceivable characteristic must be either affirmed or denied of that thing; this principle being the Law of Excluded Middle.

Therefore, it is not I, but the Law of Excluded Middle, that asserts that a thing must be either possessed of its own intrinsic causes or dependent upon extrinsic (i.e., ~ intrinsic) causes for its existence; there being no intermediate (middle) alternative.

Now, whether or not such things actually exist is another question, but for now, all that concerns us is to establish what modes of constitution are logically possible.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Because the Law of Identity decrees that each thing must have a definite set of characteristics,

The Law of Identity says that a thing is what it is and not something else.

...it follows logically that, for any given thing, every conceivable characteristic must be either affirmed or denied of that thing; this principle being the Law of Excluded Middle.

No, again. The Law of the Excluded Middle is that either p is true and ~p is false or p is false and ~p true. Proposition and its negation.

Therefore, it is not I, but the Law of Excluded Middle, that asserts that a thing must be either possessed of its own intrinsic causes or dependent upon extrinsic (i.e., ~ intrinsic) causes for its existence; there being no intermediate (middle) alternative.

Lol, I love this place.
Jehu. It's YOU, philosophising -- whether or not you exist inherently!
The thing whose causes are in question is still a thing regardless of the nature of its causes. That's the reason you can say something about it.

Now, whether or not such things actually exist is another question, but for now, all that concerns us is to establish what modes of constitution are logically possible.

No, it's not another question!
"Things" necessarily exist, whether or not you know about "the true nature" of their causes.

I see that you have only a cursory understanding of the Law of Identity and do not recognize it when expressed in different words.

The Law of Excluded Middle states: “that everything must either be or not be”,

Indeed, some things do “necessarily” exist, but not all things, for there are things that partake of only a “contingent” existence.

Leyla Shen wrote:

The Law of Excluded Middle states: “that everything must either be or not be”,

No, it doesn't "state" that "everything must either be or not be". It's stats a LAW about non-contradiction; a thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time. It's about what you say about things.

What does "everything must either BE or not BE" even mean, Jehu? What kind of an "every thing" is there that can not "be"? That is, if a "thing" exists by definition, then it cannot be said not to exist at the same time!

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, I can see you have demonstrated this in every post you have made...

Leyla Shen wrote:What makes you think I need you to explain them to me?

I said you failed to demonstrate them.

Leyla Shen wrote:Jehu, I hate to tell you but; you are certifiably insane.