Mr. Laymen

It would seem that simple, but this is trivializing and neglecting a multitude of information for the sake of simplifying communication with analogous categories, and is not accurate. What is "the Moon" that the Earth supposedly has just one of? It's a multitude of phenomena. It's a combination of seemingly countless particles and waves with varying relationships. When or where does one atom become of the moon or not of the moon? Any "thing" is in constant spatiotemporal flux and is not a finite entity. If we choose to go deeper we could acknowledge how some physics/maths predict parallel worlds and therefore a multitude of moons and earths. Or we could just ask what is the moon without gravity, without electromagnetism, without a human labels? The abstract human label asserts it is finite for the sake of defining a category, but in nature nothing is actually finite. Our Earth has many moons on a more simple perspective as well. The term "moon" just refers to orbiting masses. Well the sun is a moon in that sense. Both the Earth and Sun exert force on one another and are orbiting one another, though levels of influence vary depending on mass. But the Sun is not the Earths moon when commonly spoken of in generalities. Likewise common generalities are not the most accurate interpretations. And that's what this all boils down to, degrees of accurate interpretation. Stating, "The moon is a "thing", is an interpretation of the moon. But it's less accurate than, "The moon is an orbiting mass", which is less accurate than, "The moon is a multitude of parameters, and those parameters are in constant flux". So I think it's safe to say that a multitude of fluctuating values, is not a finite value. You're attempt was still a mathematical abstraction, not a natural example of expressing a finite singularity. After all "finite" means singular and with limits or bounds. Zeno made assumptions that numbers and percentages were actualities of nature, and when trying to locate those finite values he observed it not being possible. But this is simply a misconception for the sake of communicating categories. I may count "one moon" that the Earth appears to have, but that would just be using words to generalize what I am seeing. It's not that simple in reality though, because of relativity. So, No. It's not finite enough for me.

I would be willing to believe that there is no such thing as a finite value in reality, and this might lead to some linguistic paradoxes, or misconceptions anyways. I'd be interested in any example of a finite value in reality, not an abstract or mathematical one, but a natural example of anything that maintains a distinct finite identity. I don't think it actually makes any sense to describe something this way. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to expect Zenos Paradox to be anything more than a linguistic misinterpretation.

Pretty sure Monsanto has already secured the presidential seat for Hilary.

maybe this? http://www.soylent.me/

If it's a matter of reorganizing fundamental particles in space time to form exact duplicate relationships of one another... I'd say this is impossible, impossible because each fundamental unit must have unique coordinates of space and time in relation to one another, therefore they are never exactly the same.

I think that there is a way to think about the concept of "nothingness" and it's potential abstract relationship with logic and math that promotes this concept. Where although "nothing" may not be real in any physical sense, the concept may reflect objective expressions of reality, just as some maths and logic's may tend to do. If "Nothing" is interpreted as "Objective", and everything else is subjective, perhaps our nature is all an expression of something similar to, "dividing-by-zero". For each bit of information evolved from the infinitely recursive function of dividing-by-zero... there is a potential subjective perspective. These bits or perspectives relate to one another upon the substrate of each relationship and nothingness, where each relationship is a unique reflection of other relationships among other relate-able information. Perhaps the result is an infinitely expanding and forming of relative complexities that include us in some potentially infinite sea of information that's also... of nothing at the core.

The Scientific defintion for miracle might be "unknown". Some of society names things that reflects whatever the subjects is by referring linguistically or numerically to characteristics of its structure and function to some degree. Maybe some have chosen "miracle" because its mystical and magical and people tend to love magic, like Harry Potter, or Theism.

"Belief" seems like a term that describes a speculative subjective-perspective. "Good" seems like a term that describes contribution towards human prosperity. "Reason" seems like a term that attempts to describe objective logic (is that a thing?). If that's what you're talking about then I'd say... Any "good reason" would be subjective and vary across human perspectives... but each would be because of math.

I read that concept in Tegmarks 'Mathematical Universe' book I think.

I'd assume it's information. Information in the sense of an undefined variable. Meaning I can't answer that exactly, but abstractly it's some sort of information. And information has boundaries and logic that we have used to determine what constitutes as information. Specifically, injective function. The laws of injective function describe how information can be preserved and observed as distinct information. It's from information that matter is constructed of, as is the source of matter whatever it may be, it is also of "information". Perhaps. A predecessor, or parental type of structure? Most things appear to come from predecessors as we experience a forward sort of momentum or vector in regards to time or space-endured. Maybe you're asking how matter is created? I think the answer is just that matter is only a single facet of energy. And energy has a multitude of expressions that change depending on circumstance. Like relativity.

What are some of the "spheres"? I assume one is the "conceptual nothingness" viewed by Buddhists as mentioned in the link of the OP, but do you know of any other concepts that make use of this? Hahah, I'd just assume we all aren't defining "health" very accurately. They (Paraconsistency and Zeno's Paradox) seem like a similar scenario/issue of attempting to define finite-ness accurately, while remaining relative.

Γ J α iff ✸Γ S5 ✸α Hahah, that looks like Vulcan? This is dense material, gonna take some effort to digest, I'll give it a shot though. Thanks!

...Or if no one is interested in discussing this cause it's boring, or something, can anyone suggest any decent reading material they may be aware of on the topic?

If I may interrupt with a question between Gees and Imatfaal. I'm new to the forum and don't know much, but I like this forum cause I've learned a lot in just a couple days here. Would it be fair at all to view science and philosophy as a pair of uniquely oriented functions, that together (as a single human endeavor) form a new general function? I'm not asserting anything, just wondering if any arguments could dissolve under the lens of a single more complex analogy. Maybe this is already the case, or maybe what I'm saying doesn't actually make any sense?

I'm new to the topic, but it's interesting to me. From what I've read... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/ It seems our intersubjective verifiability agrees with LNC and LEM as a foundation of logic. But there is a debated or uncertain exception to the rules; para-consistency, rather than inconsistency. The concept I think is that some "variables", structure and function may be a contradiction intentionally, and is unlike everything else that is consistent. An exception to the rule, or is it... I'm not really that familiar with Buddhism, but the example of the exception described in the text refers to a Buddhist viewpoint. I attempted to interpret how a Buddhist view might attempt to fit logic into the modal/negation square mentioned in the text. Something like the below maybe? (I have no idea what I'm really saying here, not trying to prove anything, just trying to understand more about the topic) modal square everything exists everything doesn't exist nothing exists nothing doesn't exist negation square 0=1 0≠1 0≠1 0=1 Am I misinterpreting this? What do other people think about this topic?