Conceptualisation and Philosophy

[Harlequin]

Im glad to hear you are open to other points of view Harly........I dont agree with all of your counter points but at least you were open minded enough to hear mine and respond with fair and reasonable points.

This is dont agree with blatantly, science doen not claim to have all the answers but it holds more potential to do so than a group who postulates there Deity is infinity itself?

I would suggest it has no potential whatsoever to discover the truth. I respect the reference we are provided with by Science. I fully believe the Earth is spherical, that blood carries oxygen around the body and that hydrogen dioxide is a compound, but I don't believe these are facts in the most literal sense.

Science is only a medium in which we measure the natural world around us, much like Philosophy is for the beyond. Both require faith because neither can provide infinite reference and crucially, both are mediums used by man - who is finite.

How can you say that for other people?
I explained this before "TRUTH" is an individual concept and you just stated that nobodies self truth is discernible? Holding people to it or not you have just made a exhausting generalisation.

I can't say that for other people. I was speaking informally there. I could say that I believe we cannot discern truth and reality because we don't have infinite reference.

Harmless as it may be from your POV, what you just said may be the most offensive thing I have heard in my life.

I meant no offense.

All I meant was that I believe that truth isn't subjective and that there is one ultimate and infinite truth, seeing as truth in itself can only exist as infinity.

I believe that to suggest truth is subjective is to call truth synonymous with faith.

What about self determination? self discovery? Is all for naught if your point is taken literally because those things go along way to making us the people we are.

Innocent statements, but damning in there execution.

But how can we discover truth in reference to ourselves without the scope infinity provides? Surely the only thing left for us is faith?

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Harly.........most certainly not. Here is a truth: Infinity is a human concept, in Nature nothing last forever. Infinity only provides a scope to things of human construct, time
being one of them.

Even this will fade 1 day, all thing are spent and recycled, concepts like heaven, omnipotence, are unnatural, places and themes of infinity are none existent in nature
and while there are events and isolated parts of the universe that seem to last for ever,
some have even been postulated to be able to last the entire length of the Universal age, which in my experience is an Infinite point: causality is a bitch in this way.

How can a thing last longer than the continuum its based in? Obviously it can't because once the continuum is gone everything ceases to exist.

Now from your POV I can only ascertain that the presence and the existence of an All knowing all powerful omnipotent Deity seems like a given and is supposedly undisputed
by none?

And that is fair if that is all you have known and been brought up with, thats not pity or judgement which is besides the point, but I have many many references to draw upon to state Infinity is non existent in nature.

It does exist, but only as long as we do.

You said earlier a Deity would undoubtedly remove itself/himself/herself from the realm of his creations............I will say this Faith can make you believe more things than Fact, and that not a bad thing to have to fall back on.

To me Faith can only fill in the gaps, Its not the basis of a persons true worth, nobody not even a God can tell you this aspect of existence.

Challenging argument.

 

[Harlequin]

But you're still referring to nature within the natural world. Philosophically speaking, infinity is viable.

Infinity can only exist as everything, for if there is separation from infinity it couldn't be infinity. Therefore everything is one and one is everything. I could provide references from the Bible to support this viewpoint but I don't want to derail the subject at hand.

It sounds as if you're judging infinity in the medium of Science. You can't. Science is finite. You would need to use Philosophical arguments to qualify infinity. As an Atheist I can understand how you believe that infinity cannot exist, but as a Christian I believe that it does exist as what you would refer to as a 'God'.

In terms of creation, life creates life. Science has only ever provided us with that point of reference. Life has only ever come of life. So where could it have possibly begun?

Therefore both Scientifically and Philosophically speaking: Only from Infinity.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

But the universe, as far as mathematics and physics go, isn't infinite. We've figured out limitations that nature itself can't break, so at least to a degree, our form of philosophy is correct. Just because something isn't what it seems doesn't invalidate what we perceive it to be. It may just have extra properties we are unaware of.
For example, gravity: we always sought it as a force, and in a way, it is. It's relative to all matter in that it causes interaction between everything. Just like the other forces. But at the same point, there is theoretical evidence that gravity is just relative motion in a field of time.
The point is, the nature of gravity didn't disprove the 'truth' that it is a force, it just showed that there was more to it.

Sure, we cannot say we know everything// But at the same time, we can't say we know nothing_

 

[Will Graham]

Well everything we consider to be 'true' or 'fact' is based on something else also being 'true' or 'fact'. This means that nothing by itself can be true and constant as without reference or a point of relevance it cannot exist. The best way I can think of to explain this is thus, what is the number 4? Is it one less than 5, or perhaps one more than 3? Is it four 1s, two 2s or half an 8? All of these are what we consider valid descriptions of the number four, we claim these are true and constant. What if 4 is the only number in existence? What does it then become? Is it still a 4, how can it be described as such? It loses its identity without something to reference. Therefore do not know everything in existence we can not what we consider true is correctly referenced. I don't know if that makes sense but it is what I think.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

But you see, with that kind of logic, you create an anomaly, in that facts can only be referenced by what is fiction and vice versa.
Therefore, that logic states that knowing the infinite of the universe is irrelevant bc there would be no fiction to base it upon.<< It just doesn't fit in any philosophical equation

 

[Will Graham]

Well no actually that is not what it means, I'm not saying that knowing everything(infinite knowledge) is pointless, I'm saying that we can never have infinite knowledge. I don't know how to make it any clearer, basically every so called 'fact' assumes prior knowledge but there is no base case.

Fact A assumes Fact B is true
Fact B assumes Fact C is true etc.

At what stage to we get to a fact that relies on no other fact to be classified as true? Keep in mind I'm using the word fact liberally, it applies to any piece of information/knowledge

 

[Demon]

Well no actually that is not what it means, I'm not saying that knowing everything(infinite knowledge) is pointless, I'm saying that we can never have infinite knowledge. I don't know how to make it any clearer, basically every so called 'fact' assumes prior knowledge but there is no base case.

Fact A assumes Fact B is true
Fact B assumes Fact C is true etc.

At what stage to we get to a fact that relies on no other fact to be classified as true? Keep in mind I'm using the word fact liberally, it applies to any piece of information/knowledge

Like you said, something relies on something else. A fact generally has to rely on evidence.

Saying that the sun is hot is a fact. However, if you can prove that the sun is actually cold, the sun being hot is no longer a fact.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

At what stage to we get to a fact that relies on no other fact to be classified as true? Keep in mind I'm using the word fact liberally, it applies to any piece of information/knowledge

How about.. the first one? There are many facts that do not have to rely on anything to be true. Those facts provide an unbreakale base for more knowledge.
For example, Sol Blade said the sun is hot and if it can be proven to be cold, then it erases the original fact that it is hot.
The sun is hot, and nothing can take away that truth. In other words, it's a hard fact that cannot be broken by anything. From there, we come to another fact that the sun is a giant nuclear bomb, not a ball of ice.

To say that knowledge can only be relevant is by all literal means.. wrong.

 

[Will Graham]

It does actually rely on thousands of facts and pieces of information to exist as we define it. For example you said that the sun is hot, define what the word hot means, to do that you need to define other things like temperature. What is the diameter of the sun? To give that answer you must first define what diameter is, which in itself requires prior knowledge etc.

The Sun is hot -> What is hot? -> A high temperature -> What is temperature? -> A method for measuring heat -> What is a method? what is heat?

Of course that is a simplified version, as there are literally thousands of definitions, making up every facet of the description we have which defines the sun. My question is, is there a piece of information that at the end of it has no part of it that needs to be defined by another definition?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It does actually rely on thousands of facts and pieces of information to exist as we define it. For example you said that the sun is hot, define what the word hot means, to do that you need to define other things like temperature.

You only need to be alive to know the sun is hot, not a definition. The sun being hot is a fact that does not need to be supported by anything else.