What is the nature of our existence?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

well @dimreepr isn't, but the rest of us are!

I'm not going to hold my breath for an answer from your Guru, bc there isn't one (I'll let you keep your little green tribute)...

For instance, why is greater than zero, more meaningful than less than zero?

On 2/11/2024 at 1:48 PM, MSC said:

The truth value of ethics in relation to us

How many of US are there? And what do THEY have to do to become US?

The rules of the game is arbitrary, it's up to you if you want to play???

[naitche]

On 2/12/2024 at 1:09 AM, dimreepr said:

Nope, I'm just asking if you know what the number is???

It has no number objectively.

Subjectively or in relation to yourself, you decide. 

Any 'number' you come up with though, isn't going to provide any 'real' value to you  with out being part of/contributing to a larger equation.  It would only be representative of The Objective state. 

To decide its subjective value to Humanity, you would need to involve Humanities complete content/context to determine  the sum of its value contribution.. It has no value with out context/relationship. Your number just provides a definition.

Edited February 20 by naitche

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, naitche said:

It has no number objectively.

Subjectively or in relation to yourself, you decide. 

Any 'number' you come up with though, isn't going to provide any 'real' value to you  with out being part of/contributing to a larger equation.  It would only be representative of The Objective state. 

To decide its subjective value to Humanity, you would need to involve Humanities complete content/context to determine  the sum of its value contribution.. It has no value with out context/relationship. Your number just provides a definition.

OK, so what's YOUR number?

I imagine that it'll be your lucky number... 😉

[MSC]

On 2/19/2024 at 12:40 PM, dimreepr said:

How many of US are there? And what do THEY have to do to become US?

The rules of the game is arbitrary, it's up to you if you want to play???

Who is they? Kind of get the feeling you're just here to troll.

[dimreepr]

Just now, MSC said:

Who is they? Kind of get the feeling you're just here to troll.

I'm a 'they' to you bc we don't agree... 

Seems like a fatuous reason, given that we are both human, and I'm going to assume male...

[swansont]

On 2/20/2024 at 9:34 AM, dimreepr said:

OK, so what's YOUR number?

I imagine that it'll be your lucky number... 😉

!

Moderator Note

I think you’ve beaten this to death. Can we move along?

 

[naitche]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

🙂  +1

 

I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

 

But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

The root remains the same, the different words used direct context, rather than alter the root.

On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

 

Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

What ever value used, it is subjective of the purpose/objective it serves. It contributes value, in relation to that. Seems to me our understanding of the Objective and its subjective are at fault.

On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

.

 

I see the Objective as being negative for value. An existence, subtracted from  relationship in its definition.  Reduced to a singular definition, or statehood. A subtraction of existence to a marginalized/defined state of being, apart from all 'other' values or relation to existence. 

Its constituent property, likewise subtracted from all other value is its subjective. Any value to the Objective is given, by its constituent property. That serves and directs the defined Objective by its inherent relationship. In context. Those constituent values must be given, or assumed, for realization. 

What is realized is dependent on the constitutional values expressed by 

5 is  5 of nothing, without the units to its measure. A rock is not a rock, without the minerals that contribute to its definition. They direct the definition through their values/properties  of hardness, cohesion, mass etc.

They in-form the state. What is realized is dependent on the constituent values expressed in The Objective properties.

There is no scale of meaning. The scale is of Objective and subjective.

Yes, you can put value into the Objective. Where it serves a further Objective, and becomes subject to that one. Such as building road works for humanity. Objective is to statehood, or structure.

The value is not actually  in the roads built, but in how those roads serve the Human objective.

I don't see a scale of meaning. Value is always subjective, the Objective neutral or negative for value.

If not in subjective service to Humanity, the building of roads has negative value. If we were to say our value lies in the objective of building roads,  it would be inhuman to do otherwise. A double negative when the value is put into the Objective. No recognition of environment/reality. 

We see this demonstrated in the formation of the Kennel clubs over 150 years ago. They formed with the  Objective of improving dogs and their breeding through the use of Pedigrees. A tool to maximize successful dogs through recording what is being built on.

Their mistake was in putting all the value into the Pedigree, and not the dogs their Objective represented or served. The statement that Dogs bred outside of their own rules and regulations are not recognized has been widely understood as conditional to their constituency. 

Form follows function is a prominent tenet of Dog breeders and breeders of other animals. Yet the system formed by the Kennel clubs 150 or more years ago, supposedly to maximize the success of Domestic Dogs in their given environments, places the value in state, or form,  above any function served. The double negative. There is no recognition of environment or subjectivity in that equation. As an objective body, they serve no purpose beyond preserving 'states' of dogs. An entropic biological system where nothing not already there, can contribute, and what does not contribute or fails to, is subtracted.

The environment, or existence of Dog Breeders is not recognized by this system whos constituency openly and actively  discredit their environment, (or the foundations of Dog breeding) through  a 'faith'  value in the Pedigree Objective. Dogs bred for subjective value to the environments or people they serve are not recognized with out a Pedigree to verify the validity of their state. Quite literally. Domestic Dogs natural environment is Humanity. Back yard breeders is a term used to discredit and remove environmental  value/favor for those breeding dogs  outside of the pedigree system, or deny validity of members within it.

"Standards' of the pedigree system are upheld at the expense of the environment/existence they were to serve.

 

The double negative sets up oppositional processes to the objective. It objects, to  values negative to its own state as being where any value must lie.

This appears to be reflected in other areas where double negatives, or value to the objective applies.

It is reductive of the Objective existence. Removing property.

Subjectivity, diversity and response ability.

The objective is to State, Subjective to direction.

Direction (or value)to the state is an entropic state, as in genetic selection.

The Objective 'Objects' to anything less than its  definition.

Value imposes  relationships contrary or oppositional The Objective.

 

 

Edited March 6 by naitche

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

The root remains the same, the different words used direct context, rather than alter the root.

What ever value used, it is subjective of the purpose/objective it serves. It contributes value, in relation to that. Seems to me our understanding of the Objective and its subjective are at fault.

 

I see the Objective as being negative for value. An existence, subtracted from  relationship in its definition.  Reduced to a singular definition, or statehood. A subtraction of existence to a marginalized/defined state of being, apart from all 'other' values or relation to existence. 

Its constituent property, likewise subtracted from all other value is its subjective. Any value to the Objective is given, by its constituent property. That serves and directs the defined Objective by its inherent relationship. In context. Those constituent values must be given, or assumed, for realization. 

What is realized is dependent on the constitutional values expressed by 

5 is  5 of nothing, without the units to its measure. A rock is not a rock, without the minerals that contribute to its definition. They direct the definition through their values/properties  of hardness, cohesion, mass etc.

They in-form the state. What is realized is dependent on the constituent values expressed in The Objective properties.

There is no scale of meaning. The scale is of Objective and subjective.

Yes, you can put value into the Objective. Where it serves a further Objective, and becomes subject to that one. Such as building road works for humanity. Objective is to statehood, or structure.

The value is not actually  in the roads built, but in how those roads serve the Human objective.

I don't see a scale of meaning. Value is always subjective, the Objective neutral or negative for value.

If not in subjective service to Humanity, the building of roads has negative value. If we were to say our value lies in the objective of building roads,  it would be inhuman to do otherwise. A double negative when the value is put into the Objective. No recognition of environment/reality. 

We see this demonstrated in the formation of the Kennel clubs over 150 years ago. They formed with the  Objective of improving dogs and their breeding through the use of Pedigrees. A tool to maximize successful dogs through recording what is being built on.

Their mistake was in putting all the value into the Pedigree, and not the dogs their Objective represented or served. The statement that Dogs bred outside of their own rules and regulations are not recognized has been widely understood as conditional to their constituency. 

Form follows function is a prominent tenet of Dog breeders and breeders of other animals. Yet the system formed by the Kennel clubs 150 or more years ago, supposedly to maximize the success of Domestic Dogs in their given environments, places the value in state, or form,  above any function served. The double negative. There is no recognition of environment or subjectivity in that equation. As an objective body, they serve no purpose beyond preserving 'states' of dogs. An entropic biological system where nothing not already there, can contribute, and what does not contribute or fails to, is subtracted.

The environment, or existence of Dog Breeders is not recognized by this system whos constituency openly and actively  discredit their environment, (or the foundations of Dog breeding) through  a 'faith'  value in the Pedigree Objective. Dogs bred for subjective value to the environments or people they serve are not recognized with out a Pedigree to verify the validity of their state. Quite literally. Domestic Dogs natural environment is Humanity. Back yard breeders is a term used to discredit and remove environmental  value/favor for those breeding dogs  outside of the pedigree system, or deny validity of members within it.

"Standards' of the pedigree system are upheld at the expense of the environment/existence they were to serve.

 

The double negative sets up oppositional processes to the objective. It objects, to  values negative to its own state as being where any value must lie.

This appears to be reflected in other areas where double negatives, or value to the objective applies.

It is reductive of the Objective existence. Removing property.

Subjectivity, diversity and response ability.

The objective is to State, Subjective to direction.

Direction (or value)to the state is an entropic state, as in genetic selection.

The Objective 'Objects' to anything less than its  definition.

Value imposes  relationships contrary or oppositional The Objective.

 

 

The scarey bit is the word 'our', bc it doesn't work for everyone... 😇

Edited March 6 by dimreepr

[naitche]

Example?

Edited March 7 by naitche

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Example?

Of what?

[naitche]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:40 AM, dimreepr said:

 it doesn't work for everyone... 😇

You made a statement. Where is the value to support it? 

Where does 'it' not work?

Or maybe forget it, if faith in your own assumptions cause you to manifest a troll instead of a scientist.

I will ignore further contributions from you. Theres been no value to the Objective in them so far.

 I word this to illustrate points made previously. Seems you can't even try to comprehend, even your own contributions.

[naitche]

You are not adding to the structure of our Objective here.

Edited March 8 by naitche

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

You are not adding to the structure of our Objective here.

Perhaps you can provide a more concise explanation of what you are trying to say, bc what I'm getting from you is that it's subjective, which I'm pretty sure was covered on page one, what I'm not seeing is the objective part of your position.

As for an example of what I mean; I don't like celery, even though it's objectively edible and that many people say it's delicious. 

Edited March 8 by dimreepr

[naitche]

Thank you.

It is both Objective and Subjective as a duality. 

Celery is the Objective you have subtracted from existence in reference.

Its not cucumber. Its definition is independent of other plants or existences otherwise defined. 

Its not sunlight. Its not soil. Those are relative, and it is subject to the existence of those things. They are not included in its definition though. They are objectively exclusive.

Celery can be relative to cucumber, if the referenced Objective is to lets say, vegetables. Then  both are subject to that objective definition. Their values contribute to that definition as  property.

 

Your relationship with celery is subjective.

Its being edible is subjective.

Its not defined by its edibility, but by its genus. There will be examples of celery that don't conform to the edible Objective. Its a separate definition. The fact a piece of celery being inedible does not alter its definition.

To say otherwise is contrary to its definition.

It would require  reduction to the objective definition of celery.

It could never then be clearly defined because you have introduced subjectivity, a relationship to edibility, into its definition.

You are an Objective existence, independent of your relationship with the rest of existence by 'your' definition.

There  you are!

At the same time, there would be nothing of 'you' with out the rest of 'existence', as Objectively defined. Your objective being is subject to such a thing as  'being'. Your being  is a value  to existence. Your being adds to its properties

Its a matter of the the alluded perspective. 

Subtracted to the definition of property, or in relation to property.

 

Edited March 9 by naitche

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Thank you.

It is both Objective and Subjective as a duality. 

Celery is the Objective you have subtracted from existence in reference.

Its not cucumber. Its definition is independent of other plants or existences otherwise defined. 

Its not sunlight. Its not soil. Those are relative, and it is subject to the existence of those things. They are not included in its definition though. They are objectively exclusive.

Celery can be relative to cucumber, if the referenced Objective is to lets say, vegetables. Then  both are subject to that objective definition. Their values contribute to that definition as  property.

 

Your relationship with celery is subjective.

Its being edible is subjective.

Its not defined by its edibility, but by its genus. There will be examples of celery that don't conform to the edible Objective. Its a separate definition. The fact a piece of celery being inedible does not alter its definition.

To say otherwise is contrary to its definition.

It would require  reduction to the objective definition of celery.

It could never then be clearly defined because you have introduced subjectivity, a relationship to edibility, into its definition.

You are an Objective existence, independent of your relationship with the rest of existence by 'your' definition.

There  you are!

At the same time, there would be nothing of 'you' with out the rest of 'existence', as Objectively defined. Your objective being is subject to such a thing as  'being'. Your being  is a value  to existence. Your being adds to its properties

Its a matter of the the alluded perspective. 

Subtracted to the definition of property, or in relation to property.

 

Well, you could have put that a lot more concisely, 🙄 but what I took from it was, you're confused about what objective means in this context.

For instance, there is no objective measure of my subjective experience, which brings us full circle, bc that is the nature of our existence. 😉 

[naitche]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you could have put that a lot more concisely, 🙄 but what I took from it was, you're confused about what objective means in this context.

For instance, there is no objective measure of my subjective experience, which brings us full circle, bc that is the nature of our existence. 😉 

Then what are 'you', if not the measure of your subjective experience? ie: all that has occurred beyond and within your consciousness, to produce or build the structural manifestation of you? 

Your experience is subjective, its collective manifestation is The Objective attained.

 

Edited March 9 by naitche

[naitche]

Sorry, replace the word 'measure' with definition, or sum. 

The Objective is the identification or recognition  of totality to the sums state.

Edited March 10 by naitche

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, naitche said:

Then what are 'you', if not the measure of your subjective experience? ie: all that has occurred beyond and within your consciousness, to produce or build the structural manifestation of you? 

That doesn't mean its objectively measurable by anyone else.

13 hours ago, naitche said:

Your experience is subjective, its collective manifestation is The Objective attained.

Like I said you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

Edited March 10 by dimreepr

[naitche]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't mean its objectively measurable by anyone else.

You are not listening. The Objective totality of your measure has no value. Its value neutral,  As a totality.

Any value it has is subjective of the properties brought to it.

An electron is simple. It has one action, value or property relative to its totality, at least that we recognize to date. With out that, there is no electron. That value action directs its being. Its supported by its single purpose. That is The Objective, in  totality.

The electron is the value measure of a single property, relative to its 'being'. Its being is valueless with out that property. So there is no number for you or for ethics objectively. Not in totality. The totality is representative only, of its property. It is the measure of its property.

You are asking for the measure of a measure. Property.

Your being is Objectively measurable by the properties  that contribute to, or direct its being.

Weight, height, color sex etc.  It has no value independent of those brought to its contextualization.

 

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

No, you are projecting.. The nature of existence is the same as the nature of mathematics. One is a model of the other. Value must be provided or given to the objective, else there is no contextual property to support or direct a representative totality or sum.

Form follows and is dependent on function to exist.

Function is always relative to the Objective served by its being. Its action value.

Evidence.

Edited March 11 by naitche

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, naitche said:

You are not listening.

And you're not making any sense...

13 hours ago, naitche said:

The Objective totality of your measure has no value. Its value neutral,  As a totality.

It has to me...

13 hours ago, naitche said:

No, you are projecting.. 

What is it I'm projecting? 

13 hours ago, naitche said:

The nature of existence is the same as the nature of mathematics. One is a model of the other.

Whichever way I parse this, the answer is no...

[naitche]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And you're not making any sense...

 

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It has to me...

Naturally. Your whole being is designed to serve That Objective Human existence identified here as Dimreepr. No  purpose to existence is there, if we have no Objectives to serve.  No  structure in that.

All that contributes to your Objective totality is equal to it. Thats the nature of its being. There is no totality otherwise, to support. 

Those 'environmental' values  though, can't ever equal the totality on their own.

The Objective plays an equal role to subjective values, in their applications.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What is it I'm projecting? 

Read the sentence you quoted before you single it out for reply.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Whichever way I parse this, the answer is no...

Then you should be able to show me why not. I would actually be quite happy for some one to do that.

This is not fun.

Edited March 12 by naitche

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

Naturally. Your whole being is designed to serve That Objective Human existence identified here as Dimreepr. No  purpose to existence is there, if we have no Objectives to serve.

We're either talking past each other or you're being obtuse. I seek no objective in life, I'm happy to just sit here and think about thing's, what number would you give that?

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

Read the sentence you quoted before you single it out for reply.

Either I'm to stupid to understand or you haven't explained it well enough, it's bad form to refuse a request for clarification.

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

Then you should be able to show me why not. I would actually be quite happy for some one to do that.

Ok, please show me the mathematics of how you would model the reality of fun? You do know that we haven't got a TOE, nor the prospect of getting one, don't you?

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

This is not fun.

Irony, I suspect, is just as difficult to pin down for a mathematician. 😉

Edited March 12 by dimreepr

[naitche]

On 3/12/2024 at 2:06 AM, dimreepr said:

 

What is it I'm projecting? 

This below.

On 3/10/2024 at 10:56 PM, dimreepr said:

you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

We're either talking past each other or you're being obtuse. I seek no objective in life, I'm happy to just sit here and think about thing's, what number would you give that?

You are too caught up in numbers. I have said many times there is no value in The Objective. No number value. Neutral.  Its a subjectively applied totality. Its structure depends on subjective applications to its being.- it has none of its own. None as a totality. Its only representative, the presentation of the values supplied it in total.

What number do you want to represent 42?  Its the totality of 42 value units given its definition. Thats all. Its definition means nothing without 42 units of value to attribute it.

The  contribution of each unit is equal to the Objective. It won't achieve its objective definition of 42 if you only deem 38 of its units equal to the objective required  as 42 is defined.

Kind of like Humanity. When  parts of the Human constituency are deemed unequal to that manifestation,  unrepresentative of the whole, you  subtract from its definition.

Were you to attribute other values to the  Human totality than than are Objectively defined, then some  deem themselves more equal to the Human definition, and do the same.

As with the Kennel clubs in their constitutional  definition- A breeder is not valid as such, unless a member of a recognized Pedigree organization, breeding only within that systems rules and regulations. Nor is a Beagle recognized as a Beagle, with out a pedigree to verify it as such. anything less is discredited from their definition of a breeder, or the dogs they represent. The total space of a breeder is divided,  equal only in opposition. Diminishing value to both in mutual disregard. The total space of a Dog breeder is mutually discredited because neither part can live up to the expectations created for responsible Dog breeding in their Human environment.

Humanity isn't defined by its number but by its objective totality. What is unequal to its definition.

Dogs are not defined by a pedigree, but by their Objective totality. What is unequal to their definition.

The Objective is a subtraction, to a totality of state. More than one definition can not maintain totality.

On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

Either I'm to stupid to understand or you haven't explained it well enough, it's bad form to refuse a request for clarification.

See above, 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

Ok, please show me the mathematics of how you would model the reality of fun?

I don't claim to model celery, or fun. Only that their subjective constituent properties/actions direct any structure  given to  existence. That  subjective values must be 1st provided, to achieve objective totality to  existence.

That form follows function, in that direction given subjectively, informs or instructs the totality of an  objective state . As in any formulae.

That its the expression of subjective values that lead or direct an objective totality or state of  existence.

 

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

 

You do know that we haven't got a TOE, nor the prospect of getting one, don't you?

I can't assume your objection to its existence applies. 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:21 PM, dimreepr said:

Irony, I suspect, is just as difficult to pin down for a mathematician. 😉

 

[John Cuthber]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:33 AM, MSC said:

What is the nature of our existence?

Ephermeral.
 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, naitche said:

You are too caught up in numbers. I have said many times there is no value in The Objective.

TBH I thought it was you that brought up the number's related objective, but OK let's bin that; what's left is objective purpose (unless you have your own definition), which, when we drill down to the fundamentals, is to continue living; but that's not a universal given for all people or creature's, some of them get the urge to shag themselves to death, they wake up one day and their purpose has changed they now fundamentally, want to die and some people chose now to end their life.

Like I said, "whatever way I parse this, the answer is no."