Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

[austintorn@aol.com]

Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

Sure. They're absurd because they're false. That's the usual reason theories are absurd.

We will be looking into this more, and showing, then exploring unity (no ‘one’).

Anyone?

(note on posting methods: The aims of TQ must be respected. Anyone not doing so will be put on ‘ignore’. Zero tolerance.)

(If TQ doesn't have enough active members to respond, I will still tackle it on my own.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

So, no pure and single materialism notion can be true, including all entities of forever somethings or entities (same thing), such as electrons, quarks, fundamental substances, life, a being, or Life, and a Being, for these can be shown to be contradictory and/or absurd?

Well, that should interest someone, as well as the absurdity of a no-thing at all, or a pure ‘all is consciousness’, idealism, Platonism, and the like or that consciousness has no existence of its own at all, etc.

It might help to go through some of these, plus more metaphysical notions that are held. Anyone alive and thinking here who wants to show all, some, or most of the pure and single notions as being impossible and therefore false and absurd? (I may ask this from time to time, but am ready for no one to be around.)

Anyone, on the other hand, want to show at least why the notions are gone for, so readily, and also possibly why one of them alone must be true for sure?

Would it mean anything if there were no possible distinctions possible, as a ‘one’, since all are absurd, kind of like a blend in unity (no ‘one’ way)? And how could we show that? This means as an overarching truth of why there is existence, not just liking something personally and going with it, sermonizing.

It’s only the most sought after understanding of all time, and the main purpose of ToeQuest.

If we can but just localize or rule out some areas, that information will still be useful.

This is a science thread, but can still have philosophy, but not that just alone, for observation must bear it out, ultimately, but some pure philosophizing is still OK in the meanwhile as a suggestion for a direction, and of course necessary.

The first thrust, though, is on showing single metaphysical positions to be absurd. Sometimes, self-contradiction of the notion will be all that seem to available, for universal and magic negatives, but this is, too, a powerful tool. Plus, concepts that cannot be shown in the least will not be of any value here, nor their opposite unconcepts that are then asked to be proved. We need information that can be worked with, not just sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish.

Yes, a readjustment, too, is necessary, toward the aims of ToeQuest, as in both actually discussing a TOE and how that is done such as to have a good discussion of it.

Even coming up with 'All is undecidable' or an 'Unknown causeless' instead of some neutral unity would be a big plus, as that would have a bearing, but we must work our way to it, not just say it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by Big Chiller
Concept of existence alone is not positive in my opinion because the concept non-existence is not the opposite/negative of the concept of existence in actuality.
”
That, too, we will try to show, such as 'is' vs. 'is not' cannot be a distinction since there is no 'is' by itself as a solution as well as no 'is not'. Some may even have gotten to this temporary but not radical enough state, though another reduction, such as not considering time to be a diction, having that to be no distinction for Totality, as far as no past or future.

Summary of above:

Some might get mired in the notion of eternity as to past and future for Totality (the Absolute) and then derive their way out of it by having that Totality simply ‘is’, rather than ‘is not’, removing time, which is a fine direction, but is not radical enough, for there would be, as well, no distinction between ‘is’ and ‘is not’, for they are the same, as unity.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its sheer imagination of what ought to be as a hope and a wish if you think empiricism has the tools to monopolize philosophical discussion
”

One can chance upon hopes and wishes of armchair analysis turning out to lead to their validation, such as Einstein's feeling that something, namely time, had to give, as being variable, yet he also built on what came before and there could be confirmation, too, of relativity.

The best philosophy will be one that corresponds to some observations, otherwise it just sits in thin air. Pending that outcome, if not possible, logic can be used that at least has some known components to it. Before both comes sheer hopes and wishes with nothing behind them.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Empiricism has a necessarily limited metonymic scope for validation ... if you don't believe me, tell me what a cup of flour is essentially composed of.


”
There is no telling what a cup of flour is composed of directly since we don't interact with it directly. Our senses do, but 'we' are not aware at that level. What we get is an appearance, a re-presentation of it in the brain.

There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are not the actual reality.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by Gustav
indeed
promissory materialism's ace up the sleeve...the hidden variables ”

There may not be any hidden variables in QM, it not depending on anything, which is kind of like from 'nothing', or at least random, but then what regulates the random to stay random? Lots of absurdities around.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by Yazata
Are you asking a question or making a statement? Must all materialists possess a "pure and single materialism notion"? In other words, are you addressing materialism in general, or just one particular variety of materialism?

(I'm something of a physicalist, so I'm wondering whether you're challenging my position.) ”

It's a question. For pure materialism, I'm addressing a fundamental substance being all there is and it having been around forever.

Of course, there is effectively what serves as material, and for me that is good enough to call it 'material', as that concerns the message and not the mechanics of the messenger as to any implementation. If material has to be made, then that's fine, too, but it is here now. The absurdity might be that there's nothing to make the basic material of, it having no source but 'nothing', and that's another absurdity that a lack of anything could do anything, but something has to give here, since something forever as defined had no definition point.

A Being might be called absurd since it is complex fundamental and/or it, too, has no source.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“
Originally Posted by Signal
How is your posting this thread anything but "sheer imaginations of what ought to be as a hope and a wish"? ”

Philosophy takes hopes and wishes up a level, but to go the distance, a correspondence in observation is required.

Lacking observation is not good at all, and neither are just hopes and wishes alone, but if there is philosophy then people may use it, if that's all there is, to make the probabilistic estimates in their lives as to any metaphysical direction.


(I've been putting a sampling of today's replies from another place, just the ones that said something useful.)

[PoPpAScience]

Austin you should have a disclaimer at the start of this thread that says: warning my views are distorted by my faith based ideology. Views here are emotionally charged. Responses will be viewed as through a broken mirror, backwards and distorted. Opinions will be stated as facts. Gobbledygook may be ignored, if possible.

Austin this is not meant to be an insult, but a frustrating response to someone that can not be debated with reasonably. A debate between a liberal philosopher and a free philosopher will always just be an argument.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Austin you should have a disclaimer at the start of this thread that says: warning my views are distorted by my faith based ideology. Views here are emotionally charged. Responses will be viewed as through a broken mirror, backwards and distorted. Opinions will be stated as facts. Gobbledygook may be ignored, if possible.

Austin this is not meant to be an insult, but a frustrating response to someone that can not be debated with reasonably. A debate between a liberal philosopher and a free philosopher will always just be an argument.

Noting cited, so nothing shown, the usual ploy, plus not useful to the topic of metaphysical positions. I am putting you on 'ignore' forever, as you also had very unprofessional behavior recently in Petej's thread and at other times, and I suspect that it may arise again. I will be unable to see your posts. Farewell and wish you the best, but I employ zero tolerance now.


(
This message is hidden because PoPpAScience is on your ignore list.)