For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.

Now, here's the paradox. Is something which is constant and unchanging perfect? Can something which is always the very same be perfect?

If something doesn't change, that means that that something has no energy, it doesn't generate any energy and, therefore, cannot accomplish anything.

So the paradox is that something which is perfect, as in an unchanging state that cannot be improved, is actually imperfect. The universe which we see around us is always changing and is always improving. It is in that change and that improvement that actual perfection can be observed.

How perfect is perfection?

Yaba Daba :m:

This is the source of the japanese concept of the perfection of imperfection. I agree with you completely. If something is constant and unchanging, it's dead.

For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.

But who knows what perfection actually is like?
We, the imperfect, attempt to make assessments of that which we don't and can't know. Not exactly a wise thing to do.

Without a mirror you can only imagine how you look like.

The "perfection of imperfection" is a wesmorris trademark, and I've started more than one thread on the topic long ago (thought it wasn't titled exactly that way). No one else has ever thought of the idea but me, and then people ripped me off with no credit.

Hehe.

Bah, whatever. I did stumble across the notion independently and have said plenty on the topic.

Here's a smattering:

Perfection implies design. The universe IS, and no design can be cited - regardless of whether or not there "exists" one somehow outside of the universe.

The universe cannot fail in its function. It simply performs. Whatever it does is must be flawless, as there is no "design" to compare it to in order to discern flaw. It is expectation that introduces flaws. If one for instance, postulates a design based on its function and then it is found that there exists an exception to the design, is the universe questioned about it?... or is the inferred design scrapped or tweaked to incorporate the "flaw"?

bah.

here: (from the wayback machine)

http://phi.asmallorange.com/~porfiry/showthread.php?t=15024

But who knows what perfection actually is like?
We, the imperfect, attempt to make assessments of that which we don't and can't know. Not exactly a wise thing to do.
We are perfect in our imperfection. DNA is perfect because of it's errors, which allow living things to evolve. Our imperfection creates a personality, which is valued in our culture. Our mistakes allow us to learn. Imperfection in a model gives her character. If the universe were perfect, there would have been no variability in the positions between particles, and there would never have been planets, galaxies, stars, etc...

I suppose it all depends on the time-frame we choose to make our observations in.

I doubt perfection is perfection. Just like evil isn't necessarily evil. Maybe perfection is that which includes everything, even "imperfection" and "nothing" (no mind, no relation)

Truthseeker:

Simply because it can "do" nothing does not make it imperfect by virtue of being perfect. Without perfection, things could not be. Infinity, for instance, is perfect, and if we had not infinity, finitehood could not exist.

Wesmorris:

Perfection implies design. The universe IS, and no design can be cited - regardless of whether or not there "exists" one somehow outside of the universe.

Upon what foundation do you base this assertion? Design, aside from Quantum Quack's "perfection of utility", does not produce perfection in the least. Infinity, for instance, cannot ever be reached by incremental means, and thus it actually fits your definition of existing in a universe that just "is".

Upon what foundation do you base this assertion? Design, aside from Quantum Quack's "perfection of utility", does not produce perfection in the least. Infinity, for instance, cannot ever be reached by incremental means, and thus it actually fits your definition of existing in a universe that just "is".

It is only by comparison to design that we might gauge something's "perfection" - in real life almost always to find it short of the cause. Of course that depends on how you qualify your design. For instance if I say "I want this to be between 1 and 3 inches" and I measure 2.5, is that not "perfect" in the sense that it completely satisifies the criteria I set forth? To the end of being within 1 and 3 inches, it IS perfect. *shrug*

Wesmorris:

Quantum Quack would argue that if you set an appropriate criteria, and then fit that criteria, then that is a "perfection of utility".

And as to non-design based perfection: All the traditional "omni" attributes of God, are just the logical perfections of normal attributes of nature.

What "normal attribute of nature" results in the logical perfection "omniscient" or "omni-benevolence"?

Is benevelonce a "normal attribute of nature"?

Wesmorris:

Touche. I should have added a modifer: Aside from omnibenevolence. Since there is no known sign of "goodness" or "evil" in the natural world (which few would argue save for Platonists or Natural Law Theorists) then we cannot speak of omnibenevolence of any natural action. On the other hand, knowledge is known to be natural (in that it occurs in natural creatures, humans) and thus one can speak of "all knowledge" as the perfection of a natural thing.

Knowledge is hypothetical, an abstract construct. There is nothing 'natural' about it in the context you supply, as far as I can tell. I assert (for the fun of it) that anything you can offer to be knowledge can be expressed in terms of function.

"perfection of utility" is the only utilitarian usage of the term perfection. Hehe. So that's why I don't bother to qualify it as such.

Wesmorris:

A hypothetical and abstract construct? So you would argue that a carpenter has not the knowledge of carpentry? How can then he perform his craft?

Hehe... uhm.

Hold on I'm gathering my notes. (getting my BS generator functioning)

By expanding his function to encompass utility in a fashion that garners a desired output.

*clears throat*

*runs away*

*********
Truth*seeker: For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached
*********

But.....but.......let me tell you something.

ultimate good is excellence.
ultimate bad is poorness.

To "improve" means to make make better by adding good, so what good woould it do to add good to excellence?
This is why perfection is perfect:

perfect<-------- does not need improvement.


**********
Spider*gonads:
We are perfect in our imperfection
*****

Be quiet!!!

My micro analysis is beginning to conflict with my macro-analysis. Hmm.

Time for some basket-weaving:

"knowledge" is necessarily subjective, as it can only exist as such. As such, it doesn't apply to 'objects' of nature unless they possess a demonstrable POV. Agreed?

Wesmorris:

Hold on I'm gathering my notes. (getting my BS generator functioning)

By expanding his function to encompass utility in a fashion that garners a desired output.

*clears throat*

*runs away*

Your BS generator is superb!

Tamponia:

ultimate good is excellence.
ultimate bad is poorness.

To "improve" means to make make better by adding good, so what good woould it do to add good to excellence?
This is why perfection is perfect:

perfect<-------- does not need improvement.

Reminds me of Plato's "Gorgias", one of my favourite of his dialogues.

"knowledge" is necessarily subjective, as it can only exist as such. As such, it doesn't apply to 'objects' of nature unless they possess a demonstrable POV. Agreed?

Agreed. Intelligence is required for subjectivity.

He who sees orgainization must possess an unorgainized mind to see such. He who sees unorganization must possess an organized mind to see such. They simply compliment each other.

********
Wes*Morris:

My micro analysis is beginning to conflict with my macro-analysis. Hmm.

Time for some basket-weaving:

"knowledge" is necessarily subjective, as it can only exist as such. As such, it doesn't apply to 'objects' of nature unless they possess a demonstrable POV. Agreed?

********

bullshit is so fancy with big words like "micro and macro analyis" thrown in a bunch of barely thought out slop.

Okay, what can be proven objectively about subjectivity?

********

bullshit is so fancy with big words like "micro and macro analyis" thrown in a bunch of barely thought out slop.

Uhm... Okay.

Welcome to the fray. ;)

********

bullshit is so fancy with big words like "micro and macro analyis" thrown in a bunch of barely thought out slop.

Uhm... Okay. (there's more to the conversation than meets the eye)

Welcome to the fray. ;)

Wesmorris:

What can be proven objectively about subjectivity is that, by virtue of being oneself, and being incapable of not being oneself, all must be subjectively experienced which the self experiences. This is the logical consequence of selfhood.

Also: Wow. We're really on a role with replies, aren't we?

Wesmorris:

What can be proven objectively about subjectivity is that, by virtue of being oneself, and being incapable of not being oneself, all must be subjectively experienced which the self experiences. This is the logical consequence of selfhood.

Also: Wow. We're really on a role with replies, aren't we?

Having assumed self, I agree. So where does knowledge fall into that picture, concretely, and how is it "validated", and how can we judge it as "perfect" or not?

*******
Wes*morris:
Okay, what can be proven objectively about subjectivity?

******

Absolutely nothing.
And that is the trap.

somebody around here wishes you'd make up your mind, which is it?
The trap I mean.
out there is chaotic nonsense where A is A maybe or nothing at all, where nothing means anything and anything nothing.

but in here at least you can hold the world in a concept.
Illusion or not, you're holding some-thing.

So even if your lifeblood is faith and I can never prove what I'm babbling, and neither can any of you, isn't incoherence and nonsense the trap and not othwerwise?

The realm you desribe as the "tao" is what I always picture the inside of motehr's skull looking like. Noisy.

For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached.
I take issue with this.
Who says it has to be static?

Something which is static in a dynamic universe would most certainly not be perfect, as you allude to...
If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.
Nothing is static, so it never WAS perfect.

Something can only be perfect if is adaptable to all situations, both forseen and unforseen - therefore dynamic.

Perfection itself, is not something which can be viewed as a solitary whole.
It is not an objective attribute.
Perfection can only be witnessed in opposition to or conjunction with another.
As Wes said, somewhere in his flurry of bullshit: ;)
It is only by comparison to design that we might gauge something's "perfection"

This is perfect FOR that.
Even if not explicit, the subjective perspective is implicit...
If I say, "This is perfect!" I am saying, "This is an exact fit for what I was looking for."

Perfect, in and of itself, is meaningless.

The "perfection of imperfection" is a wesmorris trademark, and I've started more than one thread on the topic long ago (thought it wasn't titled exactly that way). No one else has ever thought of the idea but me, and then people ripped me off with no credit.

Hehe.

Bah, whatever. I did stumble across the notion independently and have said plenty on the topic.

Here's a smattering:

Perfection implies design. The universe IS, and no design can be cited - regardless of whether or not there "exists" one somehow outside of the universe.

The universe cannot fail in its function. It simply performs. Whatever it does is must be flawless, as there is no "design" to compare it to in order to discern flaw. It is expectation that introduces flaws. If one for instance, postulates a design based on its function and then it is found that there exists an exception to the design, is the universe questioned about it?... or is the inferred design scrapped or tweaked to incorporate the "flaw"?

bah.

here: (from the wayback machine)

http://phi.asmallorange.com/~porfiry/showthread.php?t=15024
Well, you didn't really say the way I said it. I was more detailed and had a more clearly laid out argument. But I'm flattered that we think alike, considering you are some 3 times older then me. :eek:

Yaba Daba :m:

Simply because it can "do" nothing does not make it imperfect by virtue of being perfect.
So something which is useless is perfect?

Without perfection, things could not be.
That depends on how you define perfection.

Infinity, for instance, is perfect, and if we had not infinity, finitehood could not exist.
Well ok. But why not?
I also have a different idea of infinity then you do. Why don't you state clearly your idea of infinity?

I take issue with this.
Who says it has to be static?

Something which is static in a dynamic universe would most certainly not be perfect, as you allude to...
That is precisely my point. Something which is static cannot be perfect. Our definition of perfection entails the concept of an static state. I'm refuting just that.

Nothing is static, so it never WAS perfect.

Something can only be perfect if is adaptable to all situations, both forseen and unforseen - therefore dynamic.
I certainly don't disagree with that.

Perfection itself, is not something which can be viewed as a solitary whole.
It is not an objective attribute.
I suppose that's true. What IS objective?

Perfection can only be witnessed in opposition to or conjunction with another.
As Wes said, somewhere in his flurry of bullshit: ;)
You can only perceive something by comparing it with something else. This is not true just with perfection, it is true with everything.

If you voted "no", next time please be more cautious with your interpretations... ;)

Hey! Who said I'm insane!?!?! :bugeye: :p

Yaba Daba :m:

**truthseeker says**
Well, you didn't really say the way I said it. I was more detailed and had a more clearly laid out argument
Absolutely not.

How is this:
"Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore."

Perfection?

geocentrism was a theory contant and unchaning througought Galileo's trial. no matter the evidence it was constant and unchaning.
was it perfect?

i....i......don't want to offend you or anything. please forgive me.

Jesus! Why is people thinking that I consider a constant and unchanging state a state of perfection? Please, point out exactly where I say this in my first post so that I can change it!

My entire argument is based in the fact that something which is constant and unchanging is NOT perfect. That's the whole point. Our definition of perfection implies something which is reached and cannot change. I said that is not correct. That's what my argument proves.

That is precisely my point. Something which is static cannot be perfect. Our definition of perfection entails the concept of an static state. I'm refuting just that.
Who says that is "our definition"?
That's what I take issue with.
Your whole premise is that prefection implies unchanging.
I don't think it does, therefore perfection is no paradox -given this argument.

Saying that perfection is a paradox implies that perfection is unattainable.
I disagree that you made that case at all, because you started with a false premise based on a flawed defintion.

If you voted "no", next time please be more cautious with your interpretations... ;)
I never vote in these polls. I didn't even notice it WAS a poll.

Jesus! Why is people thinking that I consider a constant and unchanging state a state of perfection? Please, point out exactly where I say this in my first post so that I can change it!

According to your definition of perfection...
For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached.

As I said, it is a flawed definition.

Who says that is "our definition"?
That's what I take issue with.
Your whole premise is that prefection implies unchanging.
I don't think it does, therefore perfection is no paradox -given this argument.

Saying that perfection is a paradox implies that perfection is unattainable.
I disagree that you made that case at all, because you started with a false premise based on a flawed defintion.
What is your definition of perfection?

Wesmorris:

Having assumed self, I agree. So where does knowledge fall into that picture, concretely, and how is it "validated", and how can we judge it as "perfect" or not?

Knowledge can be of two varieties: Empirical and logical. Empirical knowledge is rooted in sensory input, specifically when that sensory input is validated through the scientific method, whilst logical knowledege is all knowledge, obviously, of logic. So knowledge is a collection of facts, stored in memory, of either empirical or logical matters.

Perfect knowledge would be to know the summa of all knowledge, past, present, and perhaps even future, since all perfection, aside from "perfection of utility", is "the ultimate expression", and the ultimate expression of knowledge would be to know everything.

One_Raven:

Nothing is static, so it never WAS perfect.

Infinity is perfect and, in order to be infinity, must be static. How do you respond?

It is not an objective attribute.

Oh? Does not the finite require the infinite?

Truthseeker:

So something which is useless is perfect?

Can one "use" infinity? No. In that sense it is useless. But if we had not infinity, then finiteness could not exist, and thus in that sense it is -supremely- useful.

That depends on how you define perfection.

If something can be demonstrated to have a logical ultimate expression, it must have that logical ultimate expression as it would be absurd for it not to have. Example: What is the ultimate expression of length? Infinite length. Infinite length is part of the notion of a line itself.

Well ok. But why not?
I also have a different idea of infinity then you do. Why don't you state clearly your idea of infinity?

Infinity is implied in the finite, and the finite requires infinity in order to exist due to this logical implication. That is to say, since we have 1, 2, 3, 4, we have an infinite series from the finite, as there is always +1 to be had. If this was not so, then the finite would have no capacity to exist.

My concept of infinity: Infinity is that which has no end, for to have boundaries is to not be infinite, but to have boundaries is always to imply there is something which lays beyond. Nothingness, having no existence in space (but "existence" as nothingness) cannot lay beyond something which exists, so existence must stretch on infinitely as there is nothing but that possible.

Perfect simply means ideally suited.

Infinity is perfect and, in order to be infinity, must be static. How do you respond?

Infinity is an abstract concept.
Abstract concepts can be whatever we define them to be.
I can come up with an abstract concept of a life form that is perfectly adapted to life in free space, that does not make it real.
Prove to me that infinity is anything more than a mathematical abstract, that anything at all is proven to be infinite (other than other concepts, of course, like the set of real numbers), and you may have a convert.

One_Raven:

Sure.

All which is finite has a boundary and, in turn, boundaries imply something beyond it. Nothingness cannot exist in space, so thus there must be something. Therefore, anything which is beyond something else is something. If that something in turn has a boundary, then it implies something beyond it. And so forth...and so forth...and so forth.

That says nothing but we do not know what is at the "edge of space" if anything at all.
The rest is simply conjecture, far from proof.

We have not observed that space is infinite, simply postulated it, correct?
Everything in existence that we have ever observed is finite.

So, when faced with something that does not fit in with what is known to be possible, one of the options is something, that by all experience, is practically impossible -Infinity.

Can space be folded over onto itself, thefore when you get to the far edge, you will automatically find yourself at the opposite edge (as in old video games on your TV screen)?
Can there be simply nothingness at the "edge"?
Can it be something that no one has ever postulated?

Why not? If infinity is possible, why is "nothingness" impossible? Neither has ever been witnessed, therefore are practical impossibilities, why is one greater than the other? What makes one apparent impossibility more likely than another?
Reason, you say? Well, you are reasoning that something which has never been observed is not only possible, not even likely, but a fact.
Might as well say the whole Universe exists in the mind of God.
No proof for that either, and until proven (or at least observed ANYWHERE else) it is no less likely.

Can the universe be infinite? Possibly.
Is your reasoning proof that infinity is anything more than a mathematical abstract? Not at all.

*******
Wes*morris:
Okay, what can be proven objectively about subjectivity?

******

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again yall! This is where my micro conflicts with my macro. I agree with you if I presume nothing, but if I presume self (and mean it), then I agree with PJ.

And that is the trap.

somebody around here wishes you'd make up your mind, which is it?
The trap I mean.

Should I smell a sock puppet? Hmm.

Regardless, It's either, based on your perspective.

Oh, and what you describe as the trap is analagous to my initial notion, it's basically godel's theorum sucking you into the oblivion of logical vaporization. The extension that I did not verbalize at the time is the opposite, as we are also trapped by the tao, and cannot be more than self. Squished between the tao and godel's oblivion. The only escape as I see it, is to insert an assumption... like self... on which to hang your conceptual framework. We can then shape the tao as self commands, based on as honest an interpretation of the experience of self as is possible at a given moment. It may all be bullshit, but if we are as honest with ourselves as possible, what's the difference?

out there is chaotic nonsense where A is A maybe or nothing at all, where nothing means anything and anything nothing.

but in here at least you can hold the world in a concept.
Illusion or not, you're holding some-thing.

Exactly. Something YOURS.

So even if your lifeblood is faith and I can never prove what I'm babbling, and neither can any of you, isn't incoherence and nonsense the trap and not othwerwise?

It seems here you contradict the essence of the notion you apply above. "proof" as is generally thought of is crap, a useless babbling. The only use for the term is as applied subjectively as you imply above. Whether or not it actually correlates to the tao can never be known by anyone, but that matters not - so long as you're cool with your own proof. You have nothing to prove to anyone else unless you think you do.

The realm you desribe as the "tao" is what I always picture the inside of motehr's skull looking like. Noisy.

So I see I was wrong. There wasn't more to the conversation that had met YOUR eye.

I don't know who motehr is.

Wesmorris:

Knowledge can be of two varieties: Empirical and logical. Empirical knowledge is rooted in sensory input, specifically when that sensory input is validated through the scientific method, whilst logical knowledege is all knowledge, obviously, of logic. So knowledge is a collection of facts, stored in memory, of either empirical or logical matters.

Perfect knowledge would be to know the summa of all knowledge, past, present, and perhaps even future, since all perfection, aside from "perfection of utility", is "the ultimate expression", and the ultimate expression of knowledge would be to know everything.


LOL. YOu can say knowledge is "of two varities" if you want, but it's a crock to me. I know what you mean and have enough experience with the 'two types' to be able to dilineate them in the fashion you specify. In a practical sense of working with people, establishing the categories is somewhat sensible. But when we're talking epistemology, I find them utterly pointless. Empirical knowledge ultimately suffers the exact same trappings of "logical" knowledge. Either is ultimately subjective, as they both depend on "self" to house them.

One_Raven:

That says nothing but we do not know what is at the "edge of space" if anything at all.

Nay. It demonstrates the impossibility of anything but something existing beyond any boundary. If there exists a boundary, since nothing cannot exist in space, it -must- be a boundary to something else which does exist in time and space.

Can space be folded over onto itself, thefore when you get to the far edge, you will automatically find yourself at the opposite edge (as in old video games on your TV screen)?
Can there be simply nothingness at the "edge"?
Can it be something that no one has ever postulated?

I would argue by virtue that one passes a point where one returns to one's start, that due to that closed-nature, there must be something beyond that which is closed. That though it might be impossible for us to pierce through it - which is a possibility - that something must exist beyond it for nothingness, once again, cannot actually exist in existence. To exist is to be something, nothing is the opposite of something, hence nothing does not exist, but only "exists" in nothingness.

There cannot be nothingness at the edge, because, once again, in order to exist it must be something.

And can there be something which one never postulated? Nay. Because there is nothing which cannot be characterized as existing or non-existing.

Why not? If infinity is possible, why is "nothingness" impossible? Neither has ever been witnessed, therefore are practical impossibilities, why is one greater than the other? What makes one apparent impossibility more likely than another?

Nothingness is impossible by the very nature for if it existed in existence, then it would cease to be nothing. It is like the absurdity of a square which is a circle. To be a circle is to not be a square, to be a square is not to be a circle.

Nothingness is, actually, witnessed whenever one attempts to think of it. Ever noticed how one -cannot- think of it? That cannot actually points to the fact of what it is: NOthing. To be able to think of it would be to change its nothingness, and thus the incapacity to think of it proves what it is.

Reason, you say? Well, you are reasoning that something which has never been observed is not only possible, not even likely, but a fact.
Might as well say the whole Universe exists in the mind of God.
No proof for that either, and until proven (or at least observed ANYWHERE else) it is no less likely.

There are some concepts which, by virtue of their absurdity, must be necessarily false. Do you agree that a square cannot be a circle in the same way, in the same manner, and at the same time?

wesmorris:

LOL. YOu can say knowledge is "of two varities" if you want, but it's a crock to me. I know what you mean and have enough experience with the 'two types' to be able to dilineate them in the fashion you specify. In a practical sense of working with people, establishing the categories is somewhat sensible. But when we're talking epistemology, I find them utterly pointless. Empirical knowledge ultimately suffers the exact same trappings of "logical" knowledge. Either is ultimately subjective, as they both depend on "self" to house them.

This matter of disagreement is a fundemental one betwixt you and I. I hold with Descartes that the self must exist as the opposite is absurd, whilst you hold that though this is not necessarily so, as the self still has to acquiesce to this, no matter if this is a delusion or not.

Nothingness, if defined as the lack of anything existing, is certainly not an impossibility.
What is "outside" the closed loop universe? Nothing.
Simple.
About as impossible to concieve as infinity, nonetheless, not impossible.

Nay. It demonstrates the impossibility of anything but something existing beyond any boundary. If there exists a boundary, since nothing cannot exist in space, it -must- be a boundary to something else which does exist in time and space.
Space, itself, may not exist, is the point.

I would argue by virtue that one passes a point where one returns to one's start, that due to that closed-nature, there must be something beyond that which is closed.
And that is nothing but your own insistence.

That though it might be impossible for us to pierce through it - which is a possibility - that something must exist beyond it for nothingness, once again, cannot actually exist in existence. To exist is to be something, nothing is the opposite of something, hence nothing does not exist, but only "exists" in nothingness.

There cannot be nothingness at the edge, because, once again, in order to exist it must be something.
You are turning a rational argument into a semantical argument.

And can there be something which one never postulated? Nay. Because there is nothing which cannot be characterized as existing or non-existing.
But there are other possibilities than simply "infinite" or "container".

Nothingness is impossible by the very nature for if it existed in existence, then it would cease to be nothing. It is like the absurdity of a square which is a circle. To be a circle is to not be a square, to be a square is not to be a circle.
If there is a border either something exists beyond it or nothing exists beyond it.
There is something there or there is not.

Nothingness is, actually, witnessed whenever one attempts to think of it. Ever noticed how one -cannot- think of it? That cannot actually points to the fact of what it is: NOthing. To be able to think of it would be to change its nothingness, and thus the incapacity to think of it proves what it is.
That proves nothing at all (no pun intended).
It proves that "nothing" exists as a concept, just as "infinity" does.
The fact that something exists as a concept does not prove its validity nor its invalidity.
I can think of purple dinosaurs in my kitchen, that proves nothing at all about my kitchen or dinosaurs.


There are some concepts which, by virtue of their absurdity, must be necessarily false. Do you agree that a square cannot be a circle in the same way, in the same manner, and at the same time?
Yes.
That says nothing of "nothing".
Nothingness is the opposite of existence.
"Outside" of a closed loop Universe is either something or nothing.
Both are equally valid.
All this is interesting, but moot.
You can reason any scenario you wish.
I can argue all day offering sound consistent reasoning why the Universe exists only in the mind of God (who I am, by the way) and you can not prove me wrong.

Have you, or anyone else in existence that you know of, witnessed ANYTHING (other than concepts) that is infinite?

wesmorris:



This matter of disagreement is a fundemental one betwixt you and I. I hold with Descartes that the self must exist as the opposite is absurd, whilst you hold that though this is not necessarily so, as the self still has to acquiesce to this, no matter if this is a delusion or not.

This is because subjectively, delusion is real. Who's to say we're not both deluded?

I'm quite sure I could find people who would attest with infinite conviction that either of us is at least to some extent. How seriously should they be taken? I know your answer actually from your reaction to nameless, but this is then the source of our disagreement. I say it's a valid question, you dismiss it. However ironic, as I see it, that means you have more faith in self than I do.

The only person who can decide whether or not you're delusional is you. (even if you say "but I can for you", so what?, if I don't believe you it doesn't much matter what you think to me)

1. Perfection is a human concept. Keep that in mind.

2. It can be argued that perfection is ultimate when all is in pure movement, i.e., constant evolution.

3. In the case of (2), imperfection is part of perfection, since it is essential to movement.

4. It can also be argued that everything in the universe is perfect now, since all is indeed in motion.

3. In the case of (2), imperfection is part of perfection, since it is essential to movement.

4. It can also be argued that everything in the universe is perfect now, since all is indeed in motion.
Doesn't 4 violate 3?

Something can be perfect while changing provided change is part of the criteria it satisfies.

Doesn't 4 violate 3?

I think the argument is in the duality, that either supercedes logic or exposes the flaw in definition of the term - whichever one of those you see. Look at his name for chrissake. :)

So if logic is truth, the definition of perfection is flawed. If intuition supercedes logic, then both are true.

That the term isn't necessarily consistent with itself is entirely consistent with the inconsistency of the human condition.

wes,
Maybe it's just me, but when I read most of your arguments on a myriad of different topics, I walk away thinking that what you said over the past x pages sums up to, "I know what I know and YOU know what YOU know but WE don't know shit and never will".

Doesn't 4 violate 3?

Maybe. I guess my conclusion is that there is no difference between perfection and imperfection except as another one of those semi-useful human concepts because we think in terms of frame-to-frame motion picture rather than the actual undivided shmear of movement.

Onefinity:

Nothingness, if defined as the lack of anything existing, is certainly not an impossibility.

It is an impossibility in existence, not by itself.

What is "outside" the closed loop universe? Nothing.

Cannot work. A closed loop implies a boundary. A bundary implies something beyond it. Something, not nothing.

Take, for instance, an a circle. A circle is a closed loop, no? One can infinitely travel along the circle and never go beyond it (another reason to suggest infinity exists in other ways also). But a circle, by virtue of being closed in on itself, has a boundary that implies something is beyond it.

Space, itself, may not exist, is the point.

Can nothing exist in existence, regardless of space? No. For to nothing to -exist- at all, in existence, is to cease to be nothing, is it not? If I can come to nothing, then I have actually come to something.

And that is nothing but your own insistence.

See my argument of the circle.

You are turning a rational argument into a semantical argument.

How so? I do not deny that nothingness "exists" for lack of a better word - it demonstratably DOES - but that it does not exist in existence, but rather, as nothing. Nothing is the opposite of existence, as long is to short, save these concepts are absolute categorizations.

But there are other possibilities than simply "infinite" or "container".

Such as?

If there is a border either something exists beyond it or nothing exists beyond it.
There is something there or there is not.

If nothing exists beyond it, there is no border.

It proves that "nothing" exists as a concept, just as "infinity" does.
The fact that something exists as a concept does not prove its validity nor its invalidity.
I can think of purple dinosaurs in my kitchen, that proves nothing at all about my kitchen or dinosaurs.

A purple dinosaur is a contingency, nothingness is a necessity. Somethingness logically can have an opposite and, in fact, logically _must_ have one, specifically as we deal with it constantly. What is the opposite of somethingness? Nothingness.

Are you willing to say that logic is untrue?

"Outside" of a closed loop Universe is either something or nothing.
Both are equally valid.
All this is interesting, but moot.
You can reason any scenario you wish.
I can argue all day offering sound consistent reasoning why the Universe exists only in the mind of God (who I am, by the way) and you can not prove me wrong.

I can prove you wrong if I demonstrate that you are not a necessary being and thus not God. See also my notion if there is nothing beyond a boundary, then it is not a boundary.

Have you, or anyone else in existence that you know of, witnessed ANYTHING (other than concepts) that is infinite?

One cannot witness that which is infinite, no. The infinite is beyond observation unless one is infinite. I do, however, conceive of it, and understand it, et cetera.

Wesmorris:

This is because subjectively, delusion is real. Who's to say we're not both deluded?

Believing in an absurdity does not make it less of one. In fact, it requires a fundemental breakdown of the rational thought process.

It might be useless to the person, but would you argue that a squarecircle could ever exist? That is, a shape which is simulteneously a square and a circle in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Onefinity:

1. Perfection is a human concept. Keep that in mind.

Logical concept is more accurate, I'd say.

2. It can be argued that perfection is ultimate when all is in pure movement, i.e., constant evolution.

What would be perfect movement?

3. In the case of (2), imperfection is part of perfection, since it is essential to movement.

How is imperfection essential to movement?

wes,
Maybe it's just me, but when I read most of your arguments on a myriad of different topics, I walk away thinking that what you said over the past x pages sums up to, "I know what I know and YOU know what YOU know but WE don't know shit and never will".

Close I suppose.

We won't know shit unless we agree to. :)

(it's really just that knowledge is tentative and can only exist in a mind, each mind is bound by its circumstance to interpret its environment according to its initial conditions and the current derivative its experience - sections of each mind "resonate" with others abstractly to some degree)

Onefinity:
one_raven :)


It is an impossibility in existence, not by itself.
You will have to qualify that.

Cannot work. A closed loop implies a boundary. A bundary implies something beyond it. Something, not nothing.
A boundary implies the end of something, not necessarily the beginning of something else.

Take, for instance, an a circle. A circle is a closed loop, no? One can infinitely travel along the circle and never go beyond it (another reason to suggest infinity exists in other ways also). But a circle, by virtue of being closed in on itself, has a boundary that implies something is beyond it.
First of all, a circle is only a closed loop in two spacial dimensions, and in three spacial dimensions it would be a sphere, which is not a closed loop.
Second, if you are within this closed loop, you have no idea if there is something outside it or not.

Can nothing exist in existence, regardless of space? No. For to nothing to -exist- at all, in existence, is to cease to be nothing, is it not? If I can come to nothing, then I have actually come to something.
"Nothingness" is not an object to exist or not exist. There is the flaw in your logic. You are thinking of nothingness as a "thing" in opposition to existence. Nothingness is simply the lack of something. If there is nothing outside a boundary, that boundary marks the end of existence.

See my argument of the circle.
See my rebuttal of your circle argument.

How so? I do not deny that nothingness "exists" for lack of a better word - it demonstratably DOES - but that it does not exist in existence, but rather, as nothing. Nothing is the opposite of existence, as long is to short, save these concepts are absolute categorizations.
Please try to explain to me how it exists, but does not exist in existence.
Are you saying that it only exists as a concept?
If so, how is it different than infinity?
If it is no different, what makes it a lesser concept?

Such as?
How would I know if it hasn't been postulated? :p

If nothing exists beyond it, there is no border.
Think about this.
Just imagine for a moment that there truly is nothing beyond the sphere of space we live in.
Now, where space ends, is that not a border?
If it is not the border of space, what would you call it?

A purple dinosaur is a contingency, nothingness is a necessity. Somethingness logically can have an opposite and, in fact, logically _must_ have one, specifically as we deal with it constantly. What is the opposite of somethingness? Nothingness.
Ergo, if space has an end, that end must be nothingness.

Are you willing to say that logic is untrue?
I am willing to say that your logic is faulty.
Whether or not logic is true, or can bring us to any further truths is a topic for another debate.

I can prove you wrong if I demonstrate that you are not a necessary being and thus not God. See also my notion if there is nothing beyond a boundary, then it is not a boundary.
That relies upon your own preconceived notions of God and any God being necessary.
The Principle of Parsimony is a guideline, not necessarily an indicator of truth.
I have seen your notion of a border and I have addressed it. A border can be the end of something without necessarily being teh beginning of something else.

One cannot witness that which is infinite, no. The infinite is beyond observation unless one is infinite. I do, however, conceive of it, and understand it, et cetera.
I can conceive of and understand nothingness.
I can conceive and understand God.
I can conceive of and understand a species who can survive in space.
I can conceive of and understand many things that may or may not be real. That says nothing of proof or even plausibility.

The whole ideology behind perfection is that of questions of value.

A try to justify what one values, and at the same time, a try to deal with this entity's change (and thus its inherent change of value).
We stygmatize something as perfect, and in this, oblige ourselves to always like this, even though it might deteriorate in time.

So the objective mumbo-jumbo is completely artifical.

One_Raven:

You will have to qualify that.

Gladly. What is nothing? The lack of something, no? The opposite of it in that regard? If existence is made up only of "something", it is impossible in existence for nothing to exist. By virtue of it existing, it must be something. If it is nothing, then it is not within existence.

A boundary implies the end of something, not necessarily the beginning of something else.

In art, there is the notion of negative space. Negative space plays on the dual-nature of borders. Not only are borders inherently restricting an object, but also restrict that which is around it. That which is around it does not penetrate within the boundaries of the object, nor does the object spill over its boundaries into what is beyond it. Also, since nothing does not actually have an existence in existence, how can something border on that which does not?

First of all, a circle is only a closed loop in two spacial dimensions, and in three spacial dimensions it would be a sphere, which is not a closed loop.
Second, if you are within this closed loop, you have no idea if there is something outside it or not.

The exterior of a sphere would be a contained loop shell, looping in upon itself at various points, as well as being fundementally closed. This is not suprising consider a sphere iscreated out of an infinite amount of circles.

The argument from "Somethingness" based realities remains valid even in a 2d world, based again on the fact that nothingness is impossible to have existence in existence, due to the fact that it is contrary to what existence is solely comprised of (somethingness).

"Nothingness" is not an object to exist or not exist. There is the flaw in your logic. You are thinking of nothingness as a "thing" in opposition to existence. Nothingness is simply the lack of something. If there is nothing outside a boundary, that boundary marks the end of existence.

Yes, nothingness is simply the lack of something, I agree. However, I would argue that the "existence" of nothingness is a logical necessity arising from existence, and nothingness giving rise, in turn, to existence. Here's a common analogy I use: When one thinks of long, one must immediatly have a perception of shortness and vice versa. Also consider this: The Law of Conservation of Energy speaks of the eternal nature of energy, in that it states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only shift form. To be unable to either be created or destroyed implies a beginngless and endlessness, an eternity. An eternity requires a similarly eternal "beginning". Since nothingness and somethingness cannot exist without eachother and produce one another seperately, there must never be a time when one or the other did not exist, and thus the only way to resolve the eternity of energy is to imply the eternity of reality itself, in its form of existence and nothingness.

Now, two questions:

If a boundary borders on nothing, to what then is it bound to?

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

Please try to explain to me how it exists, but does not exist in existence.
Are you saying that it only exists as a concept?
If so, how is it different than infinity?
If it is no different, what makes it a lesser concept?

See above.

For accuracy's sake, I made up the word "noixsting" when speaking of nothingness "existing".

How would I know if it hasn't been postulated?

It seems hard to imagine a midpoint betwixt finitehood and infinity.

Think about this.
Just imagine for a moment that there truly is nothing beyond the sphere of space we live in.
Now, where space ends, is that not a border?
If it is not the border of space, what would you call it?

I ask you a similar question earlier. Here's my view: If nothingness can be demonstrated to not exist in existence, but to noixst as nothingness, then to speak of a border which borders nothing is to speak of something which is impossible. So in essence, I find the question you posed to be fundementally flawed.

Ergo, if space has an end, that end must be nothingness.


Since nothingness seems impossible to exist, then it cannot be an end to anything.

That relies upon your own preconceived notions of God and any God being necessary.
The Principle of Parsimony is a guideline, not necessarily an indicator of truth.
I have seen your notion of a border and I have addressed it. A border can be the end of something without necessarily being teh beginning of something else.

Yes, the issue of border-with-nothing and v. border-with-something is still up in the air, so yes, I won't resort to that this moment. But as to God being necssary: It is the only way for him to have attributes worthy of being called God in the supreme sense.

I can conceive of and understand nothingness.
I can conceive and understand God.
I can conceive of and understand a species who can survive in space.
I can conceive of and understand many things that may or may not be real. That says nothing of proof or even plausibility.

I was not claiming that it does provide proof or plausibility, simply that observation of a thing is not necessary for belief in a thing if it is a logical necessity.

Truthseeker:
Jesus! Why is people thinking that I consider a constant and unchanging state a state of perfection? Please, point out exactly where I say this in my first post so that I can change it!


BUT THAT IS EXACLTY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

Ok, am I insane? I'm new here but not new to reading.
I present to you page one of this thread, posted yesterday at 1:30 pm by a forum member whose name shows up on the screen as Truthseeker:


“For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.

So are you telling me you did not write it?
Onefinity sees it.
Wesmorris, Prince James, Water and One Raven certainly see it.
Tamponia sees it.
I certainly see it.

You did write it.
But you apparently cannot see it.
You basically put down a group of axioms in a formalized system we’ll call a thread, but here I am on the outside telling you the truth about something you apparently cannot even see.....and its in your own system


So am I the one that’s insane? Or you?

Tamponia sees it.

I see it.

Its almost as if he's stuck in a system that can't see itself.
Here we are holding something as true in its own system that he cannot prove with that same system.

Tamponia and Sadissio:

*sniff sniff*

I smell Godel.

How can either of you here prove that any of your statemets are true and Truthseeker's false, though?
You're in the same system.

How can either of you know for sure that you are the sane one and he the insane?

That, my dears, is a trap.

Tamponia and Sadissio:

*sniff sniff*

I smell Godel.

How can either of you here prove that any of your statemets are true and Truthseeker's false, though?
You're in the same system.

How can either of you know for sure that you are the sane one and he the insane?

That, my dears, is a trap.

FOUL!!!!

Inproper use of the incompleteness theorem!!
10 post penalty!

Gendanken, you gorgeous gorgeosity.

You're right!
It does remind me of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
I'm...even questioning my former statements. How can I be sure I'm not the fucked one and not truthseeker?

Unless I assume I am outside of his system- but wait, wait.
That is not an assumption if in fact I can point out a contradiction Truthseeker is powerless to see on his own.
Therefore, I have to be outside his system if I can see it.
I am therefore complete.

FOUL!!!!

Inproper use of the incompleteness theorem!!
10 post penalty!
Leave the lady alone.

If not, we can step outside and I mean it.

Leave the lady alone.

If not, we can step outside and I mean it.

??
Lady??

Listen Sad-ass,
you obviously haven't been around here long enough if you are refering to Gend as a lady, and you obviously don't know godel.
Back off.

You guys are just insaaaane :bugeye:

Yaba Daba :m:

Ah! Great! Two people believe I'm insane! I'm winning babe, I'm winning!!! :D

Yaba Daba :m:

Proof by consensus eh? Count me as a third vote towards your insanity. Perhaps you're slowly sanificating, but you can't tell it from what you've written here. All I see is a tamponia shoved up your ***.

Yeeeeeeeehhhh!!!!!
(Besides the last part :bugeye: )

Yaba Daba :m:

Ah! Great! Two people believe I'm insane! I'm winning babe, I'm winning!!! :D

Don't speak too soon.

For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.

Now, here's the paradox. Is something which is constant and unchanging perfect? Can something which is always the very same be perfect?

If something doesn't change, that means that that something has no energy, it doesn't generate any energy and, therefore, cannot accomplish anything.

So the paradox is that something which is perfect, as in an unchanging state that cannot be improved, is actually imperfect. The universe which we see around us is always changing and is always improving. It is in that change and that improvement that actual perfection can be observed.

How perfect is perfection?

1. The definition of perfection is arbitrary, thus, fuck it.
2. The above is an example of making observations and conclusions at the same time, thus, shove it.

Present the argument in a pure form with premises and a conclusion, and then we can talk.

Unless you're interested in a display of who's cooler than who.

I'm cooler! I'm cooler!

Yaba Daba :m:

Oh, btw.... since you mentioned it....

What is, then, the definition of perfection? :bugeye:

TruthSeeker,
Do you take issue with my definition of perfect posted earlier?
Perfect simply means ideally suited.

Could you elaborate?

No.
It is as simple as that.
Something which is ideally suited is perfect.

Tamponia and Sadissio:

*sniff sniff*

I smell Godel.

How can either of you here prove that any of your statemets are true and Truthseeker's false, though?
You're in the same system.

How can either of you know for sure that you are the sane one and he the insane?

That, my dears, is a trap.

Sureness is proof baby. Like it or don't.

Sadissio:

“For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore. ”



So are you telling me you did not write it?
Onefinity sees it.
Wesmorris, Prince James, Water and One Raven certainly see it.
Tamponia sees it.
I certainly see it.

He's actually using my definition from another thread on this forum.

Gendanken:

How can either of you here prove that any of your statemets are true and Truthseeker's false, though?
You're in the same system.

Logical consistancy and the truth.

Mephura:

FOUL!!!!

Inproper use of the incompleteness theorem!!
10 post penalty!

Resounding cheers erupt from the crowd at the referee's excellent decision.

Water:

1. The definition of perfection is arbitrary, thus, fuck it.

Hardly arbitrary. Perfection is, logically, the ultimate expression of something which can have an ultimate expression. Omnipresence, for instance, is the ultimate expression of existing in space and time, as it is infinite, and thus is perfect.

One_Raven:

Something which is ideally suited is perfect.

That's "perfection of utility", not "absolute perfection".

"absolute perfection" is a meaningless term.

No.
It is as simple as that.
Something which is ideally suited is perfect.
What about an example?

Onefinity:

What would be perfect movement?

A true circle. Which humans cannot make.


How is imperfection essential to movement?

If "imperfection" can be translated away from its negative connotation, it is analogous in this case to differentiation or complexity. The complement to differentiation/complexification in the evolutionary spiral is integration/simplification (simplification being defined as shift to wholeness). But every new integration leads to new differentiations, and every new differentiations open doors to new integrations. And so on and so forth, what William James, I believe, referred to as "the trailing 'and' "

This, by the way, is how we can transcend the old argument between Heraclitus' "all is movement" and Parmenides' "all is a permanent structure": I suggest, based on all the evidence available to me, that all is a permanent structure, but a permanent structure of movement.

One_Raven:

"absolute perfection" is a meaningless term.

How so? Would not the ultimate expression of something which logically has an ultimate expression, be an absolute form of perfection?

Onefinity:

A true circle. Which humans cannot make.

Why would this be perfect motion?

If "imperfection" can be translated away from its negative connotation, it is analogous in this case to differentiation or complexity. The complement to differentiation/complexification in the evolutionary spiral is integration/simplification (simplification being defined as shift to wholeness). But every new integration leads to new differentiations, and every new differentiations open doors to new integrations. And so on and so forth, what William James, I believe, referred to as "the trailing 'and' "

I am afraid I do not understand how imperfection is analogous to this?

This, by the way, is how we can transcend the old argument between Heraclitus' "all is movement" and Parmenides' "all is a permanent structure": I suggest, based on all the evidence available to me, that all is a permanent structure, but a permanent structure of movement.

And you also assert that perfection is imperfect by virtue that it cannot change, yes?

How so? Would not the ultimate expression of something which logically has an ultimate expression, be an absolute form of perfection?
Perhaps I am being a bit thick, but what do you mean by "ultimate expression"?

One_Raven:

See Lucidgirl's perfection thread.

Onefinity:


Why would this be perfect motion?

I am afraid I do not understand how imperfection is analogous to this?

And you also assert that perfection is imperfect by virtue that it cannot change, yes?

1. It would be perfect motion because the curve of a true circle is continuous change.

2. Never mind.

3. No, I do not assert that perfection is imperfect by virtue that it cannot change. Perfection IS change, which is why Imperfection is not distinct from Perfection, when approached from this direction.

Is the definition of perfection also subjective?

Yaba Daba :m:

For something to be perfect, it needs to have reached a state where no amount of change can improve the state which has been reached. Therefore, a state of perfection would be constant and unchanging. If there is change, then it is not perfect anymore.

Now, here's the paradox. Is something which is constant and unchanging perfect? Can something which is always the very same be perfect?

If something doesn't change, that means that that something has no energy, it doesn't generate any energy and, therefore, cannot accomplish anything.

So the paradox is that something which is perfect, as in an unchanging state that cannot be improved, is actually imperfect. The universe which we see around us is always changing and is always improving. It is in that change and that improvement that actual perfection can be observed.

How perfect is perfection?

Yaba Daba :m:

There are several major gaps in this whole reasoning.
My advice would be to first find them yourself just by using your brains.

Onefinity:

1. It would be perfect motion because the curve of a true circle is continuous change.

One can also look at the circle as a static perfect shape, analogous to a Platonic Form.

3. No, I do not assert that perfection is imperfect by virtue that it cannot change. Perfection IS change, which is why Imperfection is not distinct from Perfection, when approached from this direction.

Let's take an example of one of my "Absolute Perfections", namely, omnipresence. To be omnipresent litterally means to be everywhere at once throughout infinity. As the Hermetics said of God, "God is a circle whose circumference is no where, and whose centre is everywhere." Anyway, since this perfection would entail an infinite attribute, we have something interesting: Infinity is incapable of change. Why? Because even an infinite slice of infinity is still infinity, and thus to change it at all, would be to take an infinite amount of time, and thus it is static. Now, since staticness is an attribute of infinity, it would stand to reason that change is only an aspect of finitehood, for it is only in the finite that change is possible. To then speak of everything changing, aside from infinity, is to speak of a Lesser Perfection or a Perfection of Utility, or perhaps even a fourth category, but not an Absoulute Perfection.

TruthSeeker:

No. It is logical.

Onefinity:

One can also look at the circle as a static perfect shape, analogous to a Platonic Form.



One CAN, but that is to ignore what makes a circle so special. I think it is worth considering what I presented. It is related to why Pi can't be pinned down to a specific value. It is a pretty clear example of truly continuous change.

That gets really interesting when you read Nicholas of Cusa's work, in which (if I recall correctly) he describes how lines, points, and circles are all variations of the same thing. It is pretty powerful when you see how Pi can be found in all forms, no matter how "straight" they appear to be.


Let's take an example of one of my "Absolute Perfections", namely, omnipresence. To be omnipresent litterally means to be everywhere at once throughout infinity. As the Hermetics said of God, "God is a circle whose circumference is no where, and whose centre is everywhere." Anyway, since this perfection would entail an infinite attribute, we have something interesting: Infinity is incapable of change. Why? Because even an infinite slice of infinity is still infinity, and thus to change it at all, would be to take an infinite amount of time, and thus it is static. Now, since staticness is an attribute of infinity, it would stand to reason that change is only an aspect of finitehood, for it is only in the finite that change is possible. To then speak of everything changing, aside from infinity, is to speak of a Lesser Perfection or a Perfection of Utility, or perhaps even a fourth category, but not an Absoulute Perfection.

I hope you realize that logic and words can't replace intuition as a means for getting a deeper understanding of these things. And, of course, you can't use rhetoric and reason to communicate intuition very well. Thus, many of the topics in this area of SciForums will never be "conclusive" or "won by reason" because they can't be handled through reason.

Onefinity:

One CAN, but that is to ignore what makes a circle so special. I think it is worth considering what I presented. It is related to why Pi can't be pinned down to a specific value. It is a pretty clear example of truly continuous change.

That gets really interesting when you read Nicholas of Cusa's work, in which (if I recall correctly) he describes how lines, points, and circles are all variations of the same thing. It is pretty powerful when you see how Pi can be found in all forms, no matter how "straight" they appear to be.

I have never read anything from Nicholas of Cusa, though if he claims to demonstrate that pi is found in lines and in points and other such things, I'd be more than glad to read these arguments, as they sound fascinating. However, one might also say that pi represents the fact at no point does the circle's curvature exceed that of any other point along its edge, as well as the fact that the edge is closed, with no corners and full curvature.

I hope you realize that logic and words can't replace intuition as a means for getting a deeper understanding of these things. And, of course, you can't use rhetoric and reason to communicate intuition very well. Thus, many of the topics in this area of SciForums will never be "conclusive" or "won by reason" because they can't be handled through reason.

And what, praytell, might be an example of this intuition? If it cannot be demonstrated via reason, and hangs upon a simple "feeling", is it really real? Or simply a delusion or a clouded muck of that which has not been sorted through with reason, due to lazyness or ineptitude on the part of the thinker? Whilst somethings must surely be experienced, once experienced logically one can find out much about it all.

Truthseeker, you insufferable bore.

Wesmorris:

Sureness is proof baby. Like it or don't.


Know something?
Totally agree.
You build a humble cottage of human understanding then look up and *poof*a philosopher's there to blow it away.

He’ll even write a whole book just for you:


“ It’s a wonder that human beings ever became intellengent enough to travel between worlds.”
“ Not really. I’ve been thinking about that lately…”
“But you spoke a monemt ago as if you believe that human beings had actually achieved intelligence.”
“Clearly they have”
“I think not. I think they found a way to fake intellegence…. They think they’re rational through all of those stages.
“Self Delusion!….they never know anything.

They don’t have enough years in their little lives to come to an understanding of anything at all. And yet they think they understand.
Form earliest childhood, they delude themselves into thinking they comprehend the world, while all that is really going on is that they’ve got some primitive assumption. As they get older they learn a more elevated vocabulary in which tho express their mindless pseudoknowledge and bully other people into accepting their prejudices as if they were truth, but it all amounts to the same thing. Individually, human being are all dolts.”
- Card's "Xenocide"

Screw you Card, what's it to you?
If I, to the best of my abilities, build a conceptual framework to thrive as a reasonable being what is there to prove to you?
Proof is far weaker than any notion of truth anyway, so what do I owe anyone?

If I am in fact condemned to be wedged between assumption and oblivion, well by god if I'm honest in all my endevours to at least understand than let them eat cake! sanity’s my problem not yours.
If I’m only faking intelligence, as he says, or simply expressing my idiocy in neat language, as he says, then what is it to him?

Besides, who’d you rather have deluding themselves with a claim to truth anyway? A tyranical pope or a poor innocent girl trying to make her way through the universe as honestly as she can, given the limits of human understanding?

For once, thereofore, we agree.

Prince James:
Resounding cheers erupt from the crowd at the referee's excellent decision.

Can't blame a girl for trying, can you now?

If Hofstadter can squeeze metaphors from number theory using a tortoise and Achilles I most certainly can try doing it with Truthseerker's sanity-


Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.



http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Now had Truthseeker fucked up appropriately....

Onefinity:

I have never read anything from Nicholas of Cusa, though if he claims to demonstrate that pi is found in lines and in points and other such things, I'd be more than glad to read these arguments, as they sound fascinating. However, one might also say that pi represents the fact at no point does the circle's curvature exceed that of any other point along its edge, as well as the fact that the edge is closed, with no corners and full curvature.


There is no point on a true circle's curvature. That's the point :-)


And what, praytell, might be an example of this intuition? If it cannot be demonstrated via reason, and hangs upon a simple "feeling", is it really real? Or simply a delusion or a clouded muck of that which has not been sorted through with reason, due to lazyness or ineptitude on the part of the thinker? Whilst somethings must surely be experienced, once experienced logically one can find out much about it all.

Well, all I can say is it's worthwhile gaining experience in the use of intuition as a vehicle for disciplined inquiry and using it together with reason. You can bring that up with Henri Bergson or Jonas Salk, who are two of the greater thinkers than I who discussed using intuition and reason together to achieve what reason alone couldn't. Bergon convinced the quite "pragmatic" William James that intuition was indeed something real to be reckoned with my a serious thinker (See James' A Pluralistic Universe for his comments on the young Frenchman). Also See Salk's Anatomy of Reality: The Merger of Reason and Intuition. Salk said that intuition was a key to his development of the polio vaccine.

Onefinity:

There is no point on a true circle's curvature. That's the point :-)

Oooh. A VERY good point. Perhaps pi refers to that, that there are no points in a circle, just an enclosed line, where any points can be placed on it at utterly arbitrary points.

Well, all I can say is it's worthwhile gaining experience in the use of intuition as a vehicle for disciplined inquiry and using it together with reason. You can bring that up with Henri Bergson or Jonas Salk, who are two of the greater thinkers than I who discussed using intuition and reason together to achieve what reason alone couldn't. Bergon convinced the quite "pragmatic" William James that intuition was indeed something real to be reckoned with my a serious thinker (See James' A Pluralistic Universe for his comments on the young Frenchman). Also See Salk's Anatomy of Reality: The Merger of Reason and Intuition. Salk said that intuition was a key to his development of the polio vaccine.

I shall attempt to eventually read those books sometime in the near future, although I remain skeptical that "intuition" is really anything but subconscious recollection of memory and/or perception of patterns and other such things. Moreover, because intuition is so vague, and two people could have differing intuitions about things, I would not give credit to intuition as a truly valid method of attaining to truth. For one, nothing which is intuited fullfills the epistemological foundation of knowledge (justified true belief on verified/true premises) and it might well be that intuition might also be a subconscious training of rational thought, to bypass the laboriousness of thought processes. Just as it takes a while to solve a math problem the first time through, so too could it be to "intuit" anything, until one trains the subconscious to take over some aspects of rational thought for a quick response. Smarter people tend to grasp things far easier and quicker than stupid people, and it might be due to this subconscious training that it such is produced.

Screw you Card, what's it to you?

What card?

If I, to the best of my abilities, build a conceptual framework to thrive as a reasonable being what is there to prove to you?
Proof is far weaker than any notion of truth anyway, so what do I owe anyone?

If I am in fact condemned to be wedged between assumption and oblivion, well by god if I'm honest in all my endevours to at least understand than let them eat cake! sanity’s my problem not yours.
If I’m only faking intelligence, as he says, or simply expressing my idiocy in neat language, as he says, then what is it to him?

Besides, who’d you rather have deluding themselves with a claim to truth anyway? A tyranical pope or a poor innocent girl trying to make her way through the universe as honestly as she can, given the limits of human understanding?

For once, thereofore, we agree.

Fucking A right we do. Now we're on the same page. I concur 100%. In fact, that's my personal take on the trap. Fuck the trap. I shall make a perfect assumption (by MY standard) and run with the motherscratcher. If it's a wash, the it's MY wash. This is the beauty of being, I mean... so long as you find joy in the washing.

I was thinking the other night about the correlation of "truth" in terms of AE's relativity. It seems to me that to find an "objective" truth, one must consider the reference frame analagously to how reference frames are considered in GR. You gotta to pick the frame to do any calculations. Then if you want to know something about the whole system, you have to figure out what is common to all reference frames. "consciousness" or "self" seems like the most favorable basis for "truth" I can concoct.

lol.

i wonder if a brick to the face would change the philospher's tune eh? hehe.

goddamned hippies.

*snort*

Now had Truthseeker fucked up appropriately....
Ahhhh.... what about a reason or some evidence for your statement? :bugeye:

Yaba Daba :m:

It's amazing to see how much time is wasted on the topic of "perfection". before you can even begin to analyze a thing, you have to define it, and since everyone's perception is there own reality, everyone would have a different perception of perfection. Knowledge never ends, therefore, I am not certain that perfection, in the terms you use to describe it here, exists, because we are always in the process of learning and expanding. Even if one was at the point of perfection, if it were ever achieved on this earth, ego would fall into play, and the perfection would not last. I am not sure if it exists as a state, but maybe as moments in time. I can think of moments that in my mind, were perfect. A kiss from a man, who knew to put his hand on my face, in my hair, or in the small of my back, would be perfection. The perfect, warm chocolate chip cookie on a warm, winter day, could also be perfection.

Instead of trying to define it, why don't we just try to create more "perfect" moments?

Perfection is a value, a quality. Value and quality are subjective values. Perfection can only ever be subjective thus relative.

How can infinity be considered as perfect?

Does Infinity have a value or a quality?
Mixing the context of the statement aplying a value when no value can be applied.

The question: "Is Infinity beautiful" would be just as convoluted.
However what if perfection is perfectly changing?

What if perfection ended when Bo Derek make the movie "10"

Quantum Quack:

Perfection is a value, a quality. Value and quality are subjective values. Perfection can only ever be subjective thus relative.

I would disagree here. On no level is perfection subjective, nor in the three categories of perfection. Allow me to explain:

Perfection of Utility: To be perfect it must fit the job (objective).
Perfection of Definition: To be perfect it must fullfill the definition fully (objective).
Absolute Perfection: To be perfect it must be the logical greatest expression (objective)

How can infinity be considered as perfect?

There is nothing greater in existence beyond it, it is the ultimate expression of existence. It represents total, absolute, necessary existence. It is the ultiamte expression of all finite existence.

The question: "Is Infinity beautiful" would be just as convoluted.
However what if perfection is perfectly changing?

What would be perfectly changing?

However what if perfection is perfectly changing?
Thank you! It took a while, eh? :eek:

Yaba Daba :m:

What would be perfectly changing?

why....infinity or course!! :)

Infinity changing eternally, what more of infinity do you want? :D

please note two infinite and absolute concepts, infinity and eternity.

[please note this is not an overly serious post]

Thank you! It took a while, eh?

Yaba Daba

sorry I didn't see this thread until a few hours ago...
I still stand by the fact that perfection is only a value or quality. Hence it is not a word used in science and only used in questions of philosophy.

If I had a self evolving, self energised, self perpetuating, self correcting, self changing fully automatic system would that be considered more perfect that something that is in stasis and unchanging?

Quantum Quack:
What if perfection ended when Bo Derek make the movie "10"
Small aside- what is this intrigue with Bo Derek?
There’s a million plus black men with cornbraids who’d look just liker her without all the color.

Is it the braids? The boobs, the eyes, the what? They’re all average.

Same with Cheryl Tiegs and Farrah Fawcett, I don’t get it. You ancients from the 70’s have NO taste in women.

Wesmorris:
What card?

A fortunate writer who’s unfortunately Mormon:
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml


I was thinking the other night about the correlation of "truth" in terms of AE's relativity. It seems to me that to find an "objective" truth, one must consider the reference frame analagously to how reference frames are considered in GR. You gotta to pick the frame to do any calculations. Then if you want to know something about the whole system, you have to figure out what is common to all reference frames. "consciousness" or "self" seems like the most favorable basis for "truth" I can concoct.
Sing it

If you woke up and forgot you chekced into a hotel, the whole room would be an incomprehensible absurdity until you remembered that you had checked into a hotel and are in fact not at home.
Everything suddenly falls into place and you can to the best of your abilites, function again. “You gotta pick the frame to do any calculations.”

If you and I were dangling in space, your claim to falling up is as as valid as mine of both of us standing still.
If you and I were dangling in a philosophical vaccum, your claim to being a conscious self would be as valid as mine to both of us being an unconscious collective.

How could we even speak?
If you truly believed reality to be such a meaningless vaccum and “self’ a delusion, then only a philosophical hypocrite would be able to speak to another human being about anything.

Lile this cancerous mole Quantum Quack.

Notice the whole world speaks in terms of “I” - I belive this, I say this to you and you say this back to me I’m aware of my typing this down for the Wesmorris and screw him if he does not believe me.
All in all, this communication is impossible if I truly believe self is no valid reference at all.
But when I do, evertying falls into place and I can to the best of my ablilites, function. “You gotta pick a frame to do any calculations.”

This is why nihilistic philosophies, however alluring, are sheer irony.

lol.

i wonder if a brick to the face would change the philospher's tune eh? hehe.

Nope.

You can shut em up, like, totally quickly, like, if you do them like drugs and say NO:


If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.

When you listen to a mystic's harangue on the impotence of the human mind and begin to doubt your consciousness, not his, when you permit your precariously semi-rational state to be shaken by any assertion and decide it is safer to trust his superior certainty and knowledge, the joke is on both of you: your sanction is the only source of certainty he has. The supernatural power that a mystic dreads, the unknowable spirit he worships, the consciousness he considers omnipotent is-yours

A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty. At the crossroads of the choice between 'I know' and 'They say,' he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think. Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others. His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him.
-Atlas Shrugged

In other words, fuck The Trap.
And fuck Jim Jones.
And fuck Rand for that matter, she has some good points but all in all.....weak philosophy.

Truthseeker:
Ahhhh.... what about a reason or some evidence for your statement?

Yaba Daba
Claim consistency.

Since you did not, Tamponia and Sadissio did their best to muddle your sanity but you did not play well.
Oh well.


(you realize that between a roach or a sand wasp your claim is that humans are perfect in comparison? Think about it)

Gendanken:
Quantum Quack:

“ What if perfection ended when Bo Derek make the movie "10" ”


Small aside- what is this intrigue with Bo Derek?
There’s a million plus black men with cornbraids who’d look just liker her without all the color.

Is it the braids? The boobs, the eyes, the what? They’re all average.

Same with Cheryl Tiegs and Farrah Fawcett, I don’t get it. You ancients from the 70’s have NO taste in women.


Good to see you have resurfaced on the forum...and as usual your sense of humour is pure delight. :)

To be perfectly honest black men in braids are no competition to Dudley. Bo Derek??? Who ?

Ahh!! you mean that stunning slender longhaired sexually liberated young thing....hmmmm...nope...sorry Dudley wins hands down. :D

Btw
cancerous Mole.....comment.....hmmmm...I am of the star sign Cancer and as a kid I used to love diigging holes...especially the ones I couldn't get out of......until someone said "dig up ....dig up"
[ Joke C/o ...The Simpsons]

If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.


That Rand bitch should have met me.
I'd demonstrate to her how she permitted to bleed from being stabbed with a dirty fork in her eye, while she also permitted to being held down by three angry men.

Water:

She was refering to the seduction of irrational mystics, not of assaulters.

She was refering to the seduction of irrational mystics, not of assaulters.

The lines between the two are blurry.

I think this discussion offers strong evidence that perfection should be considered a subjective concept. It's just so darn contextual.

Water:

Are they?

Onefinity:

Since when does contextual equate to subjective?

Are they?

Considering they can have the same effects: yes.




Since when does contextual equate to subjective?

This is the best consideration I have heard in a long time!

Water:

Are they?

Onefinity:

Since when does contextual equate to subjective?

Subjects, human beings who make judgments, are always doing so in particular contexts. Generalizing those judgments beyond particular contexts is something that the subject(s) can do in an authentic way when it makes sense for them across contexts that they are in. But generalizing those judgments without the subject present - by attempting to turn the judgment into "objective knowledge" that can be transferred to subject(s) who are not in the particular contexts - is where the judgment loses its roots.

It is then that we can pretend have an "objective" standard of perfection (i.e., a standard in which we no longer require ourselves to re-address the question of "what makes this perfect?"), in order to get through the moment. For example, when a manufacturer decides that an error of .0005% is "perfect."

Put another way, perfection is always an idea that is subjectively and intersubjectively negotiated by persons or groups of persons situated in contexts that frame their subjectivity. They may call their agreed-upon standard "objective," and that is legitimate because it has indeed been made into an "object" of knowledge, ostensibly apart from them. But it is not actually apart from them.

They key thing that I hope you will learn is that the notion of objectivity is precisely this: the establishment of subject-object relations for functional epistemological purposes of working "in the world." However, it must always be kept in mind that the object is part-and-parcel of the subject, for no subject can be defined that is not bounded and given form by relationships with the world, and it is relationships that all forms are made of.

Water:

Considering they can have the same effects: yes.

One might assault the body, but the other assaults something far worse: The mind.

Onefinity:

Subjects, human beings who make judgments, are always doing so in particular contexts. Generalizing those judgments beyond particular contexts is something that the subject(s) can do in an authentic way when it makes sense for them across contexts that they are in. But generalizing those judgments without the subject present - by attempting to turn the judgment into "objective knowledge" that can be transferred to subject(s) who are not in the particular contexts - is where the judgment loses its roots.

Whilst this seems so, perhaps you might offer a few examples to flesh it out completely?

It is then that we can pretend have an "objective" standard of perfection (i.e., a standard in which we no longer require ourselves to re-address the question of "what makes this perfect?"), in order to get through the moment. For example, when a manufacturer decides that an error of .0005% is "perfect."

But cannot we offer a truly objective, rooted in logic, definition of things? And offer means whereby we can judge something perfect even when it is not a logical necessity for it to be so?

Put another way, perfection is always an idea that is subjectively and intersubjectively negotiated by persons or groups of persons situated in contexts that frame their subjectivity. They may call their agreed-upon standard "objective," and that is legitimate because it has indeed been made into an "object" of knowledge, ostensibly apart from them. But it is not actually apart from them.

So you would claim even logic is not worth giving objective standard?

They key thing that I hope you will learn is that the notion of objectivity is precisely this: the establishment of subject-object relations for functional epistemological purposes of working "in the world." However, it must always be kept in mind that the object is part-and-parcel of the subject, for no subject can be defined that is not bounded and given form by relationships with the world, and it is relationships that all forms are made of.

But does this destroy the possibility to come to a true standard of truth?

Water:
But does this destroy the possibility to come to a true standard of truth?

Truth is not a thing. It is an experience. It is like the wind: it only comes into being when there is movement. Where there is no searching for truth, there is no truth. When the truth is found and settled upon as a "standard," and the search has ended, then it does not exist. This is where you are using the concept of truth poorly, when you seem to be referring to "reality" instead. (Of course, you know that I also feel that reality is not a thing, but an experience, but that's a side argument :-)

Onefinity:

Truth is not a thing. It is an experience. It is like the wind: it only comes into being when there is movement. Where there is no searching for truth, there is no truth. When the truth is found and settled upon as a "standard," and the search has ended, then it does not exist. This is where you are using the concept of truth poorly, when you seem to be referring to "reality" instead. (Of course, you know that I also feel that reality is not a thing, but an experience, but that's a side argument :-)

So you claim there is no true truth?

Onefinity:



So you claim there is no true truth?

I claim that there is no one search.

I am disappointed that you are attempting to use a rhetorical argument. If I were to say "Yes, there is no true truth," then you would proceed into a word-based, logic-based, debate-style forensic argument that ignores and seeks to deny the authenticity and validity of the core idea that I am presenting. You are intelligent enough to understand, from my previous post, that I utilize a different definition of truth than the typical. It is based on truth as an experience, not a thing or condition that is there in the absence of human pursuit.

Now, in order to engage me in an inquiry as to the usefulness of this way of approaching the concept of "truth," you need to understand what I mean by it, which also means that you must intersubjectively acknowledge (i.e., form a common, transient bond of shared meaning and trust with me) that it has authenticity and validity. I grant the conventional definition and discussion of the concept of truth - the one that you represent - authenticity and validity, and I understand it because it is a commonly accepted part of our culture. I also seek to recognize its limitations and transcend it.

Onefinity:

I am disappointed that you are attempting to use a rhetorical argument. If I were to say "Yes, there is no true truth," then you would proceed into a word-based, logic-based, debate-style forensic argument that ignores and seeks to deny the authenticity and validity of the core idea that I am presenting. You are intelligent enough to understand, from my previous post, that I utilize a different definition of truth than the typical. It is based on truth as an experience, not a thing or condition that is there in the absence of human pursuit.

I actually wasn't attempting that, although it isn't really a rheotorical trick, but more like a demonstration of a fallacy. My question wasn't a Socratic lead, but an actual inquiry.

Now, in order to engage me in an inquiry as to the usefulness of this way of approaching the concept of "truth," you need to understand what I mean by it, which also means that you must intersubjectively acknowledge (i.e., form a common, transient bond of shared meaning and trust with me) that it has authenticity and validity. I grant the conventional definition and discussion of the concept of truth - the one that you represent - authenticity and validity, and I understand it because it is a commonly accepted part of our culture. I also seek to recognize its limitations and transcend it.

I am willing to give validity to your definition on the basis of it being a point of view, but yes, let's see which concept of truth seems to be best.

Now, you say that truth is only truth when searched for? But can we not speak of the truth being discovered, not created, in the search? Truth can be defined as "that which corresponds with reality", and if we look towards reality, think over it, will not we discover the truth of its being?

Perfection is relative of course.

Perfection is exact criteria made real.

If you cannot perfectly comprehend the criteria which you specify, you cannot percieve perfection.

Perhaps, PJ, you could explain how you differentiate between the concept of truth and the concept of reality.

Onefinity:

Perhaps, PJ, you could explain how you differentiate between the concept of truth and the concept of reality.

I'd be more than happy to.

I see the two as fundementally united, with the designation of the two being that reality being that which is real and seperated into two categories of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence) and various subcategories, whilst truth is knowledge of this reality. Since reality is absolute, so too is truth in content. Why I object, however, in speaking of "there being no truth without experience" is that, as mentioned above, the content of truth is absolute, and thus to speak of of the contents of truth being dependent on experience is improper.

Onefinity:



I'd be more than happy to.

I see the two as fundementally united, with the designation of the two being that reality being that which is real and seperated into two categories of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence) and various subcategories, whilst truth is knowledge of this reality. Since reality is absolute, so too is truth in content. Why I object, however, in speaking of "there being no truth without experience" is that, as mentioned above, the content of truth is absolute, and thus to speak of of the contents of truth being dependent on experience is improper.

Could you define the term "real" for me?

Onefinity:

Actual, existent (or in the case of nothingness, non-existent), the opposite of phantastical (although the imagination is real, the thought is real, et cetera). To be real is to "be what is".

Onefinity:

Actual, existent (or in the case of nothingness, non-existent), the opposite of phantastical (although the imagination is real, the thought is real, et cetera). To be real is to "be what is".

Mr. James, would you please tell the court, under what types of circumstances do you see a difference of conviction about what is real?

Onefinity:

Might you rephrase the question?

In what types of cases do people seem to disagree about whether something is real or not?


A second question that I have is: how do you define knowledge?

And we must nevertheless remember that perfection comes from imperfection, which makes it all perfect by default and thereafter

We - the humans - have defined perfect to be the best of something, the ultimate. If something is not evolving, than it might be a perfection of a half-good thing, because that's the very best half-good thing. But for something to be perfect in the way we use the word it has to be not good, but best. But we could also see as everything is perfect, because everything is the best of themselfs...

Hope you got it ;)

Onefinity:

In what types of cases do people seem to disagree about whether something is real or not?

New fields of science, or old fields of science that conflict with irrational belief systems (evolution v. creationism) tend to be controversial. Religion is another big source of disagreement, as are ethics and metaphysics. In recent years, even epistemology has been challenged.

A second question that I have is: how do you define knowledge?

Apprehension of what is real or false, rooted in justified true belief. In essence, being in possession of truth.

devils_reject:

And we must nevertheless remember that perfection comes from imperfection, which makes it all perfect by default and thereafter

How does perfection come from imperfection?

Victor E:

We - the humans - have defined perfect to be the best of something, the ultimate. If something is not evolving, than it might be a perfection of a half-good thing, because that's the very best