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?

This word "intersubjective" seems priceless in describing "general objectivity" accurately without committing to objectivity. And I've never heard of it before. Thanks again!

Thank you for the link, it was a good read. Especially the modal and negative squares parts. But ultimately it describes that it's uncertain if there are valid exceptions to the rules or not. In section 5 it discusses the Buddhist interpretation as being aligned with the "squares", intentionally to express something not of reality, intentionally. The only reasoning to reject this stance was described as determination. So the concept of, "no true contradictions except for...(variable)" is still on the table it seems. So I wouldn't jump to saying contradiction is a deal breaker without understanding the variables involved better. Would that be illogical still? I very likely have misinterpreted or failed to understand some things. I also feel like this is off topic and don't want to derail. I think I'll start a new thread on this topic, or look for an existing one. But not right now... I gotta run.

If there can't be an answer, as you've asserted, then I'd assume the question isn't formed of coherently relate-able expressions comparable to or of whatever "it" is. Maybe at the center But if "it" is nothing, it probably doesn't, never has, and never will exist. Probably right here, or wherever structurally is most central to "starting". Probably by changing from nothing to something. I'd assume there's a logical function of sorts that describes nothing as being a source of information leaking recursion or something. What happens when you divide by zero? And how complex can infinite structures be? Why couldn't "it" have started from nothing? And every beginning is truly a beginning, each moment that qualifies as being a moment... is unique, just as each conceivable coordinate of space or time is unique and a beginning in some way from some perspective. Why is there always something before it? What about nothing before it? The first beginning would be the first, and the last beginning would be the last. What does nothing being made from nothing even signify? There wouldn't be "something" before the first beginning, otherwise we wouldn't call it the first, if we even needed to express that notion, to explain what "it" is to begin with. Perhaps your question or the concept it intends to express is missing critical or asserting false aspects of what "it" is, and what "nothing" is, in relation to how nature actually is. It might turn out that what we are experiencing is non-existence and we just haven't defined existence or the concept of "be" or "being" accurately enough. Possibly the concept of existing or not existing is just a misleading, misinterpretation of how nature actually is. I think there's plenty new territory for us to discover, probably infinite, but there's plenty assumptions we may learn to consider being inaccurate as well, maybe especially when trying to finitely define accuracy of what something is or is not, and from what perspective.

Why is a contradiction a deal breaker, are there no explainable contradictions observed to still be logically sound, for reasonable comparison? Sorry, if its a dumb question, or too off topic.

So it seems to me that ultimately the entirety of science or just human understanding in general, is mostly based on foundations that aren't 100% solid and are up for debate on whats more or less accurate about our approach or reasoning in the first place- on some levels. (I don't mean for that to sound like I'm discrediting logic or science or anything - just acknowledging possible vulnerabilities or kinks, even if insignificant) And our history of learning is compiled in an almost tangled web of adjustments from all sorts of angles over time. So precise clarity and hierarchical categorization of foundational reasoning is difficult to assess and study as it requires quite a deep understanding of several (probably rather complicated) aspects of math, logic, and history from different points of view - just to start thinking serious about the all encompassing topic. If this is somewhat accurate, it makes me wonder if there were something slightly inaccurate within our reasoning foundations and someone were to discover this, would we even socially and politically be able to untangle that web of everything logic & math to make the changes necessary for a more accurate interpretation. I mean how difficult or impossible would that be at this point in history? For instance imagine tomorrow we discover something stupid like set theory is flawed because numbers aren't an accurate interpretation of whatever, and instead we could view things as something else...(I said its stupid). If something like that were to be discovered, first no one would consider it, and even if someone did how much effort would it take to then verify this new "foundation-changing" significance against everything we know that seems to work just fine already. It could take 500 years to do the research needed to convince the appropriate people that we should change our reasoning of such a fundamental aspect, regardless of the validity or simplicity of it. And on top of that, what if said inaccuracy, was all that was preventing us from a complete and simple understanding of "insert-topic" Like I understand things being good enough to get the job done, but I'll always have a desire to understand whats the most accurate interpretation of nature, rather than just what works. This has been a really great learning experience for me guys, Thank you! So many interesting things to add to my list of things to read about.

Would it be possible or make sense to analyze "unresolved foundations" as a category across a wide spectrum of subjects or fields, to look for similar structural patterns or characteristics between what seems to be, "foundational" (I don't know a better word), and/or "unresolved & foundational" categories within each subject, assuming there are such categories available to analyze? Could that concept (if it makes any sense) be developed into (if its not already) a legitimate scientific study that could relate to the title of the thread?

Is there a specific focus of study on this topic of debate, or starting point to read about it that you know of? I don't even know how to define this topic... "unresolved foundations"? I stumbled on this as a starting point maybe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems

That's really interesting about math. Thank you for the explanation. I had no idea it was in a state of conflict regarding accurate definitions or general consensus of what it really is. I feel like I have a bunch of math focused questions now. I'll go visit the math section and see if I can find similar topics. Like what are the" exceptions to rules", or specific conflicts preventing a complete agreement of what math is exactly. It seems especially interesting if it is the "language of physics", which in turn is humanities most accurate understanding of existences' entirety. Thanks again! Haha, my search went from metaphysics to metamathematics... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics I've never heard of this stuff. It's like "meta" is a prefix for describing self... Haha! It actually is... I'm dumb.

I bet I'd never have wanted to ask this question if the term "science" was just called "empirical data", or something that can't be as easily misinterpreted, by me at least Perhaps the word "science" implies additional descriptions making it more complicated than "empirical data" alone... Or maybe its just a simpler word. But aren't terms like "objective" and "real" strictly philosophical terms? Is math not actually a science then? If its dictated by logic alone and no experiments, isn't that similar to the description of philosophy?

Actually, I'm confused again...sorry. So Physics requires Math as a foundation? Why is math not the "backbone" of the other sciences then, instead of Physics? Is it that physics and math are almost the same thing, but one is an abstraction of the other which is physical? Or something else? Sorry this may seem like a dumb question.