Philosophy Discussion Forums

It is impossible to explain the psychological with a mythical force and glue which is what we have ended up with due to an initial incorrect guess concerning natures 2 electromagnetic forces which do not cancel out.

They balance.

The electromagnetic field, as well as any other field in the language of physics,
ie a field not being composed of particles,
is an abstract, ie imaginary
Whether you like or not.
Any field which is composed of particles,
such as an agricultural field, it is real.

The 2 electro magnetic forces in nature are equal and opposite that's all. The 4 off force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS clearly happen.They are not illusionary.

It makes total sense to me that you would need an equal and opposite of both forces on both sides the dualistic fence to obtain a balance.

When I refer to the dualistic fence I am referring to the fence that presently states that in nature 0=1 and 1=0 OR +=- and -=+

In nature the 0=1…1=0 or +=-….-=+ doesn’t work if you are applying it to electromagnetic force interactions to try and obtain a balance.

You need the other two force interactions 0=0…1=1….or -=-….+=+ as well to obtain that balance.

All 4 off electromagnetic force interactions NN;NS;SN;SS are therefore required.

I maintain that these forces can only be balanced in nature they cannot be cancelled out and these electromagnetic force interactions are clearly not illusionary.

I maintain that an electromagnetic vibratory balance is in place in nature and this is what’s observed throughout the cosmos at all levels macro and micro.

These ideas may go against presently accepted modern day scientific views but I gave up on those views years ago simply because they do not relate to me personally at the psychological or philosophical level.

The brain for example utilises electromagnetic processes.

The individual experiences consciousness oscillation or vibration with the “in” and “out” of the moment consciousness states.

I think to start a new line of argument we need to agree on whether change is real or not. What do you think?

Bahman wrote: ↑February 15th, 2023, 7:22 am I think to start a new line of argument we need to agree on whether change is real or not. What do you think?

Vibration exists.

Everything vibrates in the cosmos.

So there is a change of state due to vibration.

Change is therefore a real experience at the consciousness level.

Unless one is UNAWARE that is.

If one is always UNAWARE then one won't be able to recognize when one is AWARE.

When one is truly AWARE then one can distinguish when one is AWARE and when one is UNAWARE.

I therefore completely disagree with the original post statement.

I can distinguish when I am "in the moment" and when I am "not in the moment" and I can change the consciousness state that I experience from "not in the moment" to "in the moment" any time I like and know the difference between these two DIFFERENT consciousness state experiences.

I can take CONTROL of consciousness.

Please don't bore me by telling me I can't do this when I do it all the time for goodness sake.

Just because another person has no control of their consciousness that doesn't mean that applies to everyone.

All it means is that there many who do not have control of consciousness, which is true, they don't,because they do not have true AWARENESS.

If they did then they would control their consciousness.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm [...]

With that important last note about the strict fundamental context of what I mean by "really exist", I hereby give you my argument against presence and time:


[1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.

[2] 0D points do not really exist.

[3] A 1D line is a mathematical construct.

[4] 1D lines do not really exist.

[5] The X-axis and Y-axis are each both mathematical constructs.

[6] X-axis-ness and Y-axis-ness do not really exist.
Example: If we have three different people draw a 2D graph to represent the location of pool balls on a specific pool table, and then ask each person whether or not the red ball is on the right side of the Y-axis, with such right-side-ness corresponding to positive values for X (i.e. X > 0), each person may give a different answer depending on how they graphed it. In that way, we can say that each X-axis and Y-axis is conceptually relative to the graphing process. The 2D surface of the pool table does actually have an X-axis or a Y-axis, and likewise thus doesn't have real leftness or rightness.

[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.
If this item (#7) is the first with which you disagree, please post reply in both of these other two topics instead of this one: Objective Leftness and Rightness Do Not Exist and Would Flat-Land Four-Eyed Freddy Notice a Difference?

[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless and incoherent to ask if Pluto is above the center of the universe or below the center of the universe. This is because like the X-axis on a pool table, the so-called center line to which it is relative is a fiction. It's not just fictional because the physics happen to be relative, but rather the physics are so relative because it's a fiction. When we ask how far a pool ball is from the X-axis, we are relating it to something the doesn't exist. in this case the X-axis and by extension x-axis-ness.

[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
Example: Between graphs of the same pool table, what is leftness on one graph can be upness on another graph. So it's not just left and right that are relative to each other, but the concept of left-right-ness and up-down-ness are relative with each other. One person could say the ball moved 2 centimeters to the left, but another person would say the same ball moved 2 centimeters up, and yet another graph would indicate it moved 2 centimeters diagonally equally on the X-axis and the Y-axis.

[10] A universal line of vertical-ness does not really exist.

[11] An objective line of vertical-ness does not really exist.

[12] A single relative line of vertical-ness does not really exist.
Clarification: We could say that infinite possible relative lines (plural) of vertical-ness exist, but that is like saying that many possible variations of Santa Claus exist, or that many translations of Alice in Wonderland Exist. We can say that multiple fictions exist, but strictly speaking none of them really exist, in terms of fundamental reality and the fundamental physics. The fact that infinite equally true alternative but contradictory stories exist is a symptom of fiction.

[13] Flat Earth Theory is wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results, such as using a flat 2D map on flat paper to go on a hike. In another example, an engineer designing a bridge can just falsely assume that gravity is pulling straight down in all directions for simplicity, even though that's not compatible with a center gravity at the center of a globe.

[14] Newtonian Mechanics are wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results. For example, if timing swimmers at the Olympics, the humans holding stop-watches can all do their work using oversimplified false classical mechanics, rather than requiring all humans timing the race to solve Einstein's field equations before a winner can be declared.

[15]] Simultaneity is not objective, but rather relative to fictional reference frames.
Example: From one reference frame, A can precede B, and B can precede C; but from another reference frame B may occur first, and then A, and then C.

[16] Objective space does not really exist.

[17] Objective time does not really exist.

[18] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that left is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from right.

[19] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that x-axis-ness is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from y-axis-ness.
Clarification: Time is time only according to and relative to a given fictional graphing or given fictional conceptual reference frame; on a different reference frame the so-called time would then instead be space, or would be a mixture of space and time. Neither the reference frame nor up-ness, down-less, forward-ness, backwards-ness, or time-ness actually exist.

[20] Forward-ness in space and backward-ness in space do not really exist.

[22] Future-ness and past-ness do not really exist.

[22] In terms of their non-existence in physical reality, the future and the past are like up and down, left and right, front and back.

[23] There is no objective here.

[24] There is no objective now.

[25] There is no objective here-ness.

[26] There is no objective now-ness.

[27] There is no objective space-ness.

[28] There is no objective time-ness.

[29] For Special and General Reactivity to be valid and work, 4D spacetime cannot be and is not 3Ds of space plus 1D of time, but rather 4 fundamentally equal dimensions of timeless spaceless spacetime.

[30] None of the 4 dimensions of 4D spacetime is fundamentally special or different in any real objective way, meaning there is no fundamental way to objectively categorize 3 of the 4 dimensions together as being more alike than the others.

[31] In classical or Newtonian mechanics it may be a choice or matter of interpretation to use a block universe model instead of a non-block universe model, but in Special Relativity it is no longer a choice or matter of interpretation. Einstein's physics do not work without the relativity of space-ness and time-ness, rendering them as arbitrary as x-axis-ness and y-axis-ness.

[32] The universe has no X-axis or line of X-axis-ness.

[33] The universe has no axis of time or timeline.

[34] Anything that is a past event relative to one reference frame is a future event to infinite other reference frames.

[35] Anything that is a future event relative to one reference frame is a past event to infinite other reference frames.

[36] Your past is someone else's future.

[37] Your future is someone else's past.

[38] The 4D block universe contains everything that really exists physically in 4D spacetime, regardless of whether it would be considered past or future from any given reference frame.
Clarifications: In other words, roughly speaking, the 4D block universe contains everything you would consider past or future.

[39] The 4D block universe contains the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, all humans who have ever lived, the death of the Sun and everything else that physically exists.

[40] The 4D block universe has no real singular presence such that it is impossible to say that certain events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) exist objectively in the past or the future.

[41] All so-called events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) all exist together in the block universe, which has no present, no future, and no past, but rather is eternal and timeless.

[42] Objectively speaking, no part of the block universe is the past part and no part of it is the future part.

[43] There is no animated 'present' acting as a moving border between the past and the future because the past and the future do not objectively exist in the same way that right and left do not objectively exist.

[44] Assuming there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe, without objective time, change is incompatible with determinism.
Example: If the Big Bang and the death of the Sun are changing or could change, then determinism is not true.

[45] Causal determinism is true, at least in regard to everything that can be scientifically said to physically exist within the 4D block universe of timeless spacetime.
Clarification: If there are things transcendental to the unchanging 4D block universe (e.g. transcendental consciousnesses, plural), then those transcendental things could all each have their own changing relationship with the unchanging block universe, and the mechanics of those transcendental interactions could be deterministic or not. Because it's transcendental, it would presumably be scientifically immeasurable and physically unobservable, at least in any standard third-party way that doesn't result in a form of the Observer Problem.

[46] Without something transcendental to the 4D physical world and everything contained within the entirety of 4D spacetime, there is no change, and thus any alleged change is not real.

[47] The 4D block universe that contains everything in 4D spacetime is timeless, unchanging, and eternal.

[48] All humans including Oscar Wilde and Britney Spears timelessly eternally live in the unchanging 4D block universe of timeless 4D spacetime.

If you disagree with any of the above statements, please explicitly specify which one(s) and why.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑February 15th, 2023, 11:44 am I therefore completely disagree with the original post statement.

Joshua10, what do you mean by "the original post statement"?

The original post contains 48 numbered statements.

Which is the very first of the 48 numbered statements with which you disagree?

I disagree with the very first of the 48 numbered statements and the remainder of the statements generally.

I believe that you take the view that there is no SELF. Correct me if I am wrong i.e. that a fixed point SELF in which everything else can be measured against doesn't exist. My understanding is that you have been persuaded of this PRIOR to the 48 statements. Perhaps you could explain why you have been persuaded in this way.

The issue with this is if you don't exist then please explain how you can then go on to make the 48 statements.

My view is that dualism does not cancel out. Philosophically, I take the view that dualism balances out.

In other words,my view is that there is a neutral part to our make up which has balanced dualism within it.

My view is that we are not just made up of + and - aspects which is related to dualism. We have a 3rd aspect to out make up. A neutral aspect which is as real as the + and - aspects.

I have explained how I believe the + and - aspects of our nature balance out in other posts and I have given my explanations as to why I believe nature concurs.

I have clearly explained that in order to balance out the 2 equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature which cannot have good or bad assigned to them then you require an alternating + and - force to balance with an alternating + and - force which produces a VIBRATORY balance which I believe is entirely consistent with what is observed in nature. Everything vibrates in the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels.

Everything.

There is a fundamental difference between a philosophical cancelling out as opposed to a philosophical balancing out.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm [1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:32 am I disagree with the very first of the 48 numbered statements

Interesting. This topic already has 120 replies, but you are the first person to disagree with the very first of the 48 numbered statements. Thus, I thank you for bringing your unique viewpoint to the table. I love learning about different perspectives and beliefs. I have created a separate topic to discuss that specific statement (i.e. #1 of the 48):

Is a 0D point a mathematical construct?

Please do post there to explain why you disagree with my claim that a 0D point is a mathematical construct.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm [1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:32 am I disagree with the very first of the 48 numbered statements

Scott wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 5:40 pm Interesting. This topic already has 120 replies, but you are the first person to disagree with the very first of the 48 numbered statements. Thus, I thank you for bringing your unique viewpoint to the table. I love learning about different perspectives and beliefs. I have created a separate topic to discuss that specific statement (i.e. #1 of the 48):

Is a 0D point a mathematical construct?

Please do post there to explain why you disagree with my claim that a 0D point is a mathematical construct.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 2:18 am Ok thanks for your response.

However,you have not explained how you can possibly post 48 numbered statements, if [...]

I appreciate your reply.

With respect and love, I have no interest in debating or discussing statements #2 - #48 if we disagree on #1.

That's because, if #1 is wrong, then surely many of the higher numbered ones are, hence why #1 is #1. It is a premise on which the whole argument is predicated.

Thus, please do instead post in the topic dedicated to statement #1:

Is a 0D point a mathematical construct?

Joshua10 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 2:18 am So your reasonings don’t add up for me.

Of course.

If you disagree with the very first premise of the 48-statement argument, then of course that's the case.

That is why it is called it a premise.

But I would love to discuss that premise--statement #1--with you. Please do post in the topic dedicated to statement #1:

Is a 0D point a mathematical construct?

Scott,

Does you initial post statement originate from you belief that all matter disappears into a single point as modern day science has predicated?

I am trying to understand your reasoning.

I would like to challenge you by saying that we don’t have a reliable PRESENT day science yet that can be trusted.

We only have past and future PREDICTED science.

The issue with that is,matter is PRESENTLY disappearing into multiple holes in the cosmos and not just one hole as past and future science has predicted.

Can I politely suggest that you be more flexible with your philosophical reasonings therefore and stop policing comments that are purely based upon your own belief systems.

I would suggest that as it is not possible to definitively prove the post topic statement to be true, then there is the possibility the opposite is true.

One can therefore only HOPE that the post topic statement is true.

I would suggest that there is no point in making deep statements that one can in no way definitely prove.

I could state the opposite which holds equal merit and we can argue all day and all night about it and neither would win because neither side can prove it to be right or wrong. The same with the original post statement.

Can I suggest that true philosophy realizes what I am referring to and therefore balances rather than taking a definite side so I would suggest that you are way off mark with your philosophical stance.