Objects
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:29 bigfletch8(a)gmail.com wrote: > On May 14, 5:19 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> On May 14, 5:25 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >>>> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >>>> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >>>> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >>>> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >>>> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >>>> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >>>> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >>>> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >>>> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >>>> physical. >>> Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen. >>> The whole entire ocean is their properties. >> However you describe items, senses, even your physical makeup, all can >> be reduced to energy, so it follows that one 'level of formed energy >> recognises (in sentient beings) other forms within the common frame of >> reference. >> >> This is why it is only people who have experienced genuine psychic >> phenomena,as an example, can relate, and those who havnt , regartdless >> of their intellect, simple cannot. Teh describing colour to a blind >> man syndrome. >> >> Its all about consciouness expansion. >> >> Wherever I go, you can go and do greater works" comes from your own >> belief system >> >> There's believib=ng and- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > PS. I was writing this in the airport pay station, and the moey ran > out :-).. > > There is believing and knowing. As the reliance of beliefs subside, > the knowing emerges, otherwise there is deep disturbance within (which > is why there are increases in psychological 'instabilities' in modern > society. > > The emerging 'knowingness' regarding freedom within the individual, is > confronted by the past images of belief based actions and attitudes. > > Good for big pharma of course !!! > > BOfL Crikey. You looked at alt.philosophy outside of home!?
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:30 Zerkon wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:47:26 +0100, John Jones wrote: > >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >> physical. > > How then can an apple fall from a tree and land on the ground? > The apple is identified by non-physical objects as a physical object.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:30 bigfletch8(a)gmail.com wrote: > On May 14, 6:37 pm, Zerkon <Z...(a)erkonx.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:47:26 +0100, John Jones wrote: >>> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >>> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >>> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >>> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >>> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >>> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >>> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >>> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >>> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >>> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >>> physical. >> How then can an apple fall from a tree and land on the ground? > > Why say it does? The tree and ground move and the apple stays still, > is just as valid. > > BOfL Makes no difference.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:32 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes: > >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >> physical. >> > > A long, long time ago, you came to the unfortunate conclusion that > philosophy was a game of absurdities. The more obviously stupid the > claim, the better the philosopher. > > Since then, you've worked hard to be the best philosopher in the > world. > > It's just a damned shame that you still don't know what philosophy is. > No, my intention, from the start, was to make a riddle of the claim that physical objects have identity.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:41
Jonathan wrote: > "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:hsi6io$u5e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do not >> have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way that >> is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of (or >> is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not physical. > > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, > as far > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > Albert Einstein > > > Math is just an attempt to simplify the complicated real world. > The greater the simplification, the more accurate the math. > Only reaching complete accuracy when finding the simplest > possible, which is farthest from reality possible. Maths does not represent the behaviour of its objects. > > Implying of course that all questions of meaning are found > farthest from accuracy, farthest from objective scientific > methods as possible. At the most subjective and abstract. We can pin it down. We can say that there is a framework for establishing objects which means establishing their behaviour. > > There is no such thing as an objective reality. The objective reality is certain. That material objects do not vanish and appear is certain. > As our perception > of reality is often the most powerful variable of all deciding the > the future of our surroundings. It's not so much a variable, as a framework for variables. > > Since objective methods take us farthest from truth and > understanding, we must simply inverse the method. > Instead of a part detail driven method of deriving fundamental > laws, we use the output of the whole. We let the global > system behavior serve as our primary source of knowledge. > > And to be rigorous we must also begin with the most complex > systems the universe has to offer, not the simplest parts. > And we measure a systems behavior against it's possible behavior. > So in essence all things are compared to themselves, not other > things or independent yardstick. > .. > This boils down to abstractly modeling the most complex systems > known, which are living systems. Called a complex adaptive > system, this new mathematics of complexity science is essentially > the abstract form of Darwinian evolution. In abstract form this > math applies as well to living systems, as it does to the less complex > ones such as physical systems. > > By rigorously inversing our method of understanding, we discover > that living systems best display the fundamental (system) properties > of the universe. Our fundamental laws are to be derived from > the most complex the universe has to offer, life. > Not the other way around, which is looking to the physical > universe first to understand higher order. > > A single mathematical language for all the real world > complex dynamic systems that exist, physical or > living. > I do not think that an algorithm, complex or not, can identify a life-object. |