What is matter
Particles(matter) are eigenvalues of a wave equation(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf1ptt_the-primacy-of-consciousness-4-of-7_techundefined). Matter consists of atoms, going smaller one eventually reaches nothing, which implies that matter consists of nothing. This makes no sense.
Everything exists only in a mind
- Language functions as the usage of the law of excluded middle(design/chance).
What is the intended meaning of language if truth cannot be defined in it? Syllogism:
- p1: Truth cannot be defined in language.
- p2: We know that our descriptions are true.
- c: Our descriptions are only metaphorical of some higher truth.
- The very concept of evidence has no evidence, this enables its usage like induction is used and not experienced.
- Deduction uses axioms, but axioms are based on induction, thus deduction is based on induction.
- Everything experienced is expressed through the laws of logic. Concentrate/uniformity of energy over a medium in thermodynamics for example bootstraps the law of excluded third.
- Objectivity does not need an object and testability is itself not testable.
- If everything were to be Popper falsifiable, we would have a suspension of reason.
- Asserting as Dawkins does that Pattern or design are not our only options violates the law of excluded middle(A or not A) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
- Logic cannot be tested ,as the verification would have to use logic.
- The obvious cannot be proven.
- That which we experience is only possible because of that we cannot experience.
- Anything that is obvious is circular, only knowing everything prevents the obvious from being arbitrary.
- God's existence is as obvious as the laws of logic and thus cannot be proven.
- If God our Father were capable of lying, he would be able to deceive himself and thus wouldn't be God.
- The term 'science' must only be used a dissimilar term for induction.
- The term Laws of nature is the reification of induction.
- All concepts reduce to a usage of the law of excluded middle and all fallacies, paradoxes to a reification of the laws of logic. Adam Smith, Malthus(closed math set), Zeno, Barber, Crocodile dilemma all reified tautologies.
- The law of excluded middle is the transcendent truth that enabled .
- Information is the representation of something other than itself, anything represents either itself or something else other that itself. This self/other uses the law of excluded middle like Induction is used and not experienced.
- God exists because it is impossible for him not to exist. (Impossibility of the contrary)
- Tautology is saying the same thing twice irrespective of any possible conclusions or premises. Circularity is a conclusion repeating a premise by using filler between conclusion and premise that could either be tautology or not. A premise being repeated makes it arbitrary. Circularity is understood as a subset of tautology: tautology precedes the existence of everything and is the essence of language.
- God precedes the existence of everything and thus his only justification must be tautology.
- Any question which induces infinite regress, cannot be raised(this applies to predestination).
- "I Am That I Am" is the Virtuous Tautology that enables expression of experiences.
- Gen.1, Rev.22, Exodus 3, Heb.6 is a trinity of logic: Law of Virtuous Identity(Exodus 3), Excluded Middle(Alpha/Omega,Day/Night Gen.1, Rev.22) and noncontradiction(Heb.6). Laws of logic
- The Laws of Logic are the Agrippian bootstrapped fabric of our language.
- There can't be physical evidence for God(Special pleading), in the same way the the laws of logic have no evidence. God is the evidence for the very concept of evidence and thus God can't have evidence for himself , preventing regression of evidences.
- Regression of evidences are prevented by having no evidence.
- The sophistication and complexity for the justification of a world view is inversely proportional to its Agrippian insight.
- "I Am That I Am" is God's name for ever and memorial unto all generations: an Agrippian memorial.
- "I Am That I Am" is the virtuous tautology that justifies the virtuous circularity of God.
- Facts and evidences(fossils) do not give us the capacity to reason, rather we impose a set of presuppositional beliefs on the evidences.
- We don't have knowledge but a set of beliefs.
- We don't know whether a single fossil was the ancestor of anything that made it to reproductive age. Using the fossils as evidence for adaptation or evolution is rhetorical circularity.
- All attempts at refuting the Christian mythological archetype, bootstraps the archetype.
- Language itself assumes God's existence and cannot therefore be used to deny his existence.
- The 'primacy of existence' is a an attempted foundationalist solution to Agrippa. Any argument which attempts to avoid infinite regress by positing a foundationalist solution, violates the circularity leg of Agrippa.
- Recorded human history extends back only 6000 years because man was created 6000 years ago.
- The reification of time results in the denial of free will.
- As with Zeno's paradoxes, the solution to Dembski's design inference is metaphysical and not mathematical, his math research is irrelevant. Design is not an empirical or measurable concept.
- Free will prevents Agrippian regress of volition.
- Questions which induce infinite regress cannot be raised such as "If God made us, who made God". The answers isn't 'nobody' but that the formulation is undefined within the Platonic constraints of our language in the same way that the square root of negative one is undefined in the Real numbering system.
- The premise with "Does God know or not what we will do in the future?" is that it can be raised in the first place: our Platonic language doesn't allow all questions to be raised.
- You cannot reach a point in time the same way a location is reached. Location is experienced but not time.
- Contradictions don't exist, they are the result of faulty premises.
- Rhetorical tautologies disguises that a pretext.
- Correspondence theory of truth: TRUTH is that which corresponds to reality. How do we know what is real?
- Occam's razor doesn't add entities beyond what is necessary, but neither does it subtract entities.
- If your reasoning was not valid how would you know it, if you have to use valid reasoning to determine this in the first place? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFfHoHIOwAE
- What is our evidence that a rock will still be a rock without any minds? X is true because x has not been proved false is Argument from ignorance.
- What evidence would it take to convince you of the God who says you already have enough evidence ? God provides enough evidence,you cannot therefore insist on more evidence, since more evidence won't convince you of God.
- What is the evidence that supernatural causation cannot be confirmed? Asserting that it can't because we have not yet done so is Argument from ignorance.
- How do you know that what you say will mean the same thing five seconds ago(or at least represent the same meaning). How do we know the future will be like the past. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFfHoHIOwAE bruggencate die issue 25min) .
- Does knowledge have to be true and do logical absolutes exist in all possible worlds: how do we know this?
- p1: The laws of logic exist only in a mind.
- p2: These laws are used to express our experiences
- C: Experiences, such as heat and matter exist only in a mind.
- p1: Laws of logic have no physical location
- p2: We use these laws to express our experiences
- C: Our experiences have no physical location. What can be experienced is only possible because of what cannot be experienced.
The syllogism is a deductive argument and not inductive: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Induction is a generalization of past experiences. Premise one and two aren't experienced but true by necessity. Under Induction the argument is made that deduction is in fact based on induction.
- p1: We inductively use our reasoning to justify our reasoning in a circular manner, assuming that our reasoning was valid in the past.
- p2: To make a deductive argument, we have to use our reasoning.
- C: Induction enables deduction, like unfalsifiability enables falsifiability
Lifting of stones
The unstated premise with "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?", is that a stone is something physical instead of it only being an idea in the mind of God. From Berkley's idealism the question is actually: Can God have ideas in such a way that he doesn't have them or 'can God think so that he isn't thinking'. One reply is that this is reductio ad absurdum and another that the question cannot be raised to begin with. Can we think in such a way that we don't think? If everything doesn't exist only as ideas it leads to
- solipsism which is absurd.
- Zeno style paradoxes. Our language is discreet(ref math paper by David Berlinski).
- Everything physical has to ultimately as one regresses (quarks,leptons, bosons) consist of nothing why makes no sense.
- Fallacy of misplaced Induction with the question of the Trinity, how can one be three and three be one ? This is where induction is used where it cannot be used, because God is not subject unto induction like we are , since he established induction's usage with a narrow scope(sun rises, seasons etc.Genesis 8 induction ). As with The God delusion "Who made God question", we cannot raise the question in the first place.
- If there is no free will how would we construct an experiment to detect free will. Won't the outcome already be predetermined?
- Must substance abusers attempt to use their free will or must they pretend to use free will when willing themselves not to consume alcohol? If they must pretend, how is a regression of pretensions avoided.
- Predestination uses gen.8 induction and applies it to the knowledge of God, where it cannot be applied ! Our concept of time derives from induction. "...call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved ..." says scripture. We cannot now raise the question as to whether God knew advance whether a person will do this or not, in the same way that we cannot use induction nor deduction to ask how is one three and three one with the Trinity. The only choice we have is to accept or reject God's free gift of salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ that he raised from the dead. God is so powerful, omniscient that he even has the ability to limit the range of questions we can raise. It is ironic that it is the Calvinist who has the unwitting premise that he can raise any question he wishes. This also neatly lays to rest the open theism debate
- If induction is based on deduction, then deduction becomes an attempted foundationalist solution to Agrippa's trilemma.
- Mathematical solutions of philosophical problems(Zeno) are attempts at short circuiting Hume's problem of induction by a deductive conductor.
- Axioms are based on our inductive experiences, deduction uses these axioms , thus deduction is based on induction.
- The solution to the axiomatic third leg of Agrippa's trilemma is Genesis 8 induction.
- Attempts at contemplating the infinite is like attempting to contemplate darkness,randomness and nothingness as Berkley ideas. We have no inductive experience of these. They derive their meaning as negation of our experiences. As such they they are contained within our Platonic language, even if we don't know what it they are.
- Induction, because it is either virtuously circular(Genesis 8 induction) or rhetorical can only be used, not experienced.
- Numbers are the semiotics of induction. One + one apple = two apples(1+1=2), But two hydrogen and one oxygen atom = one molecule(2+1 = 1). Not all experiences are the same under all conditions, numbers(which cannot be experienced) allows us to express this.
- Materialists are using volitionalistic language to express a world view where volition or will are illusions, resulting in Meaningless sentences.
- Max Tegmark states that everything ultimately reduces to numbers. Which means that ultimately everything reduces to the law of excluded third or language. Seven means increase from 6 , regress from 8 . Progression/regression.
- Our usage of induction is justified by God , all his conclusions are contained in his premises by necessity because he knows everything.
- Calvin's predestination makes the effects of faith unfalsifiable and facilitates the Retrospective determination fallacy.
- Deriving conclusions from premises applies only to finite knowledge, under infinite knowledge all conclusions are contained in the premises by necessity.
- Tautologies are the map to the territory of our experience, Zeno reified the law of excluded middle with his paradoxes.
- Falsifiability isn't falsifiable, like logic isn't verifiable,preventing Agrippian regression of falsifiability.
- Attempting to prove God's existence is like setting out to prove Napoleon existed, it is an attempt to make God look ridiculous. This argument is from Kierkegaard and is the first presuppositional argument I could find before Van Til, Bahnsen notes. It seems as though Kierkegaard wasn't Calvinistic,but I am not sure(Calvinism is a doctrine of devils). He had such a profound influence on Wittgenstein, that Wittgenstein went through the trouble of learning Danish just to read him in the original. The Kierkegaardian presuppositionalism is evident in the works of Wittgenstein(references to supplied later). Failure to comprehend Presuppositionalism resulted in philosophers not appreciating the presup. passages in Wittgenstein's works.
No precise definition of mathematics exists. Math is a dissimilar term for deduction and as such is a subset of language and induction. Language is the metaphysical framework that grounds deduction. Math cannot say anything about that which we designate as meaningless. "Cretan says all Cretans are lierers ", is a meaningless sentence and applying deduction such as Godel's incompleteness theorem theorem results in a meaningless conclusion.
Limit of infinity
The vast expanse of the universe exists only as an idea, not as actual matter.
- P1: The limits of our Platonic, antonymic language is the limit of our knowledge. (reaction to Wittgenstein)
- P2: Infinity derives its meaning as the negation of finite.
- C: Infinity is contained by our Platonic language.
- Irreducible complexity or Irreducible Functionality is a usage of the law of excluded middle similar to how Induction is used to express falsifiable experiences. Dembski's Intelligent design movement is incorrect to view it as a falsifiable concept and have done great harm by this.
- Intelligent design is a dissimilar term for IC, neither are falsifiable, which prevents Agrippian regression of design.
- Design or function like induction isn't detected but used to ratiocinate about our detections.
- Intelligent design is not a testable concept, it is what we use to express judgment over what appears designed or not: the judgment itself cannot be experienced.
Flow of time
- p1: Time is used to designate an experience.
- p2: Laws of logic are used to express an experience.
- C: Time is a generalization of the law of excluded middle.
- None of your experiences was the experience of the flow of time, because time is a before/after concept, an imposition of the law of excluded middle. Time marks the point of an experience such as the heat of the sun and therefore its flow can't be experienced.
- All experiences are expressed by that which cannot be experienced: the laws of logic.
- Motion is a dissimilar term for here/there, this can't be divided by the law of excluded middle.
- Design is a usage of the law of excluded middle, similar to how induction is used and not experienced.(Intelligent design)
- All of language functions as the usage of the laws of logic and specifically the law of excluded middle.
- In the same way that "imaginary"(complex numbers) equivocates with fictional, entropy equivocates with randomness.
Entropy, is a measure of the concentrate in a system containing energy and NOT information. Information has no physical location, energy does. Shannon's paper deals with communication, not pragmatics. The less concentrated the energy and more dispersed over the medium, the greater is the system's entropy. The concept of entropy is useful in the physical sciences, particularly in thermodynamics (the study of heat processes). The terms also creates confusion between the process of reconstructing a small sample of energy(photons, electrons) transmitted, at the receiving transceiver(i to v conversion) and the concept of information,pragmatics. Circuits don't have intent, you do.
- Information, like matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only expressed. (First law of information) <=> first law of thermodynamics.
- Second law of thermodynamics applies in both open and closed systems, because in all systems the tendency is for energy to become uniform over the medium (increase in entropy).
- Entropy, like "non-linear" and order is a weasel word that lends itself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy.
- All confusions and philosophical problems reduces to that of language.
- You are not adapted to anything, but only express your attributes.
- The oxymoron term Natural selection is the metaphor for Unintentional adaptation(acquisition of attributes). Adaptation is the effect, evolutionary theory invokes the effect as the cause. Darwin stated that ns is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the vegetable and animal kingdom. Malthus reified a closed mathematical, obfuscating the underlying Agrippian circularity(adaptation, therefore adaptation) and hence the futility of attempting to derive a mechanism.
- Using induction we only have experience of attribute expression, even if such a thing as adaptation , darkness,randomness or nothingness were to exist, we would not be able conceive of it within the Platonic constraints of our language.
- Any perceived adaptation mechanism in evolutionary theory is a cause, effect inversion.
- Fitness, DRS, ns, evolution etc. are all dissimilar terms for the Agrippian premise of adaptation or acquisition of attributes. Asking what does 'fitness' mean(undefined in evolution journals) is asking what does adaptation mean. A lexicon of terms are spawned to obfuscate the circularity of adaptation, wedged between adaptation premise and conclusion are rhetorical tautologies (Claim of logic).
- Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism is as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics(David Berlinski) and thus is a Claim of logic.
- Darwin took a Claim of logic and invoked it as a force.
Numbers are an extension of the law of excluded middle, with '7' is meant either an increase from 6 or regression from 8 for example.
The laws of logic enable the expression of the experience and numbers the ratiocination about the measurement: numbers and laws of logic cannot be experienced nor measured, preventing infinite regress (Fleeming Jenkin . These laws only exist in a mind and aren't contingent on human minds, before the arrival of human minds the universe couldn't have both existed and not existed at the same time and manner(law of non-contradiction). Because we use them to express our experiences , it means our experiences also exist only in a mind(George Berkeley), preventing the reification of these laws.(reaction to libertyclassroom.com)
When Dan Barker stated to Bruggencate that he could be wrong about anything he did not think to apply the logic to the very assertion itself. The act of doubting is itself certain - certainty of the doubt. In order to be uncertain about everything, one must be certain about one thing,namely the assertion itself. Hence the position that one could be wrong about everything is self-refuting.
- "..In this case it would happen by wishing to believe that human language is more perfect than it is, as for example that “red” really does have a meaning that would cause something in an a definitive way to stop being red at some point with an imperceptible change, or in the case of the Liar, to assert that the word “true” really does have something like a level subscript attached to its meaning, or that it has some other definition which can block the paradoxical deductions...." https://entirelyuseless.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/the-paradox-of-the-heap/comment-page-1/
This 'vagueness' of human language is actually the discrete binary nature of our language, we cannot go in between nothing and something, a sudden jump is made bridging an unknowable chasm.
Zeno's point with his paradoxes was to ask: why is there nothing in between nothing and something? And how does one bridge the divide between one and many. Eubulides Sorites paradoxes of the heap was a variation of Zeno's paradoxes: how does one bridge the divide between a single grain of sand and a heap of sand. The answer is as with the who made God question and Calvinism's predestination: the question cannot be raised to begin with in the first place due to the Platonic binary structure of our language.
Motion is an experience and not a tautological number, numbers are used to express said experience, Zeno reified his tautological premise that one is one and many many.
119. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/berkeley1710_4.pdf ".....Arithmetic has been thought to have for its object abstract ideas of number. A considerable part of speculative knowledge is supposed to consist in understanding the properties and mutual relations of numbers. The belief in the pure and intellectual nature of numbers in the abstract has won for them the esteem of those thinkers who put on a show of having an uncommon subtlety and elevation of thought. It has put a price on the most trifling numerical theorems that are of no practical use and serve only to pass the time; and it has infected the minds of some people so much that they have dreamed of mighty mysteries involved in numbers, and tried to explain natural things by means of them. But if we look into our own thoughts, and consider the doctrines I have laid down, we may come to have a low opinion of those high flights and abstractions, and to look on all researches into numbers as mere earnest trivialities insofar as they aren’t practically useful in improving our lives....."
".....124 . Nothing can be more obvious to me than that the extended things I have in view are nothing but my own ideas, and it is equally obvious that I can’t break any one of my ideas down into an infinite number of other ideas—which is to say that none of them is infinitely divisible. If ‘finite extension’ means something distinct from a finite idea, I declare that I don’t know what it means, and so cannot affirm or deny anything regarding it. But if the terms ‘extension’, ‘parts’, and the like are given any meaning that we can conceive, that is, are taken to stand for ideas, then to say ‘a finite quantity or extension consists of infinitely many parts’ is so obvious a contradiction that everyone sees at a glance that it is so ...."
Zeno's arrow exists only as an idea, his idea cannot be divided into infinite number of other ideas.
Motion isn't a number, like experience isn't logic, the map isn't the territory. Zeno's paradoxes commits the Reification fallacy of the law of excluded middle. Numbers and physics equations are the map to the territory of our experience, but not the experience. Sometimes the interaction of matter and energy corresponds to a tautology but not under all conditions. 1+1 apple = 2 apples under the force of gravity, but under the force of a blender blade it equals one unit of juice(1+1=1). When we ratiocinate about our experiences with apples, we are not faced with a seeming insurmountable philosophical problem as with Zeno, because mathematical tautologies(laws of logic) are not being reified or made concrete as with Zeno.
Malthus population theory derives from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I am not sure about this, but I think Smith and Malthus committed the reification fallacy. The structure of their argument corresponds to a tautology(apples example) under certain conditions(closed mathematical set), but not all conditions. This is why the question was raised as to how Malthus could have been shown to be wrong by experimental observation as published in journal papers, if Malthus theory was a tautology. My pending solution to this is that once the subtle reification is unearthed, the tautology question is not raised, as it isn't raised with the apples example.
Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' reified a closed mathematical set, the actual reason for economic growth is technological breakthroughs such as the computer. Intra competition is but a peripheral matter, a side-effect. On RTnews a guest said "The economy must liberate us and not dominate us". An economy like a university is not a physical institution, his economy statement reified the economy.
We appeal to our memory to corroborate our memory, our senses to justify our sense experience, we are caught in an arbitrary belief that can only be escaped by knowing everything. Knowledge paradox must be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes In order to know anything you must know everything, to prevent what you don't know from contradicting what you do know. We know for certain that we don't know everything, how could we know this if we have to know everything in the first place?
- p1: We are certain that we don't know everything.
- p2: To be certain about anything you must know everything
- C: We have been revealed limited knowledge by God who knows everything, which implies that he has made his existence obvious and that attempting to prove his existence is as futile as proving the laws of logic.
Event the assertion that we must not be biased, is biased for not being biased. Everybody is biased, biases change.
Forces are not logic
"....Some theories are better supported than others; only the really well-supported theories, such as gravity and evolution, can be considered as similar to facts, keeping in mind that in science every explanation is provisional...."
Shallit confuses a force - gravity- with a premise 'Evolution'. Under the rubric of evolution is the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past, there is no falsifiable mechanism theory as to how the conclusion that attributes were acquired from nothing could have transpired.
Can prove non-existence of something
fitness, variation etc. are all dissimilar terms for adaptation, which is the acquisition conclusion from the premise that the present attributes were not in the distant past. Evolutionary narrative invokes the conclusion as the mechanism. What is needed ia a mechanism to bind the conclusion to the premise, which Agrippa has shown to be impossible: the more complicated your argument, the more obfuscated the underlying circularity. Adaption , therefore Adaptation. Because of God, therefore God. Either rhetorical or virtuous.
- http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2304/1/zeno_maths_review_metaphysics_alba_papa_grimaldi.pdf Math solutions of Zeno misses his point
- http://thisislanduniverse.com/elaborations-and-musings/the-reification-of-time-and-space/ Reification of time and uses 'scientific' in the article way to much.
- http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2621/2062 Note the reference book list at the end on logical fallacies and circularity, circular reasoning.