Science Forums 2

[Jway]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I am a little on the loopy end of things today being that I missed some precious hours of sleep.. so I don't think I will get into your reply to deeply at the moment, but I think what should suffice is a conclusive statement of my own, which you can for yourself discern if it is agreeable with your thoughts.

I was actually looking to coincide and elaborate on how I was receiving your First Law. What I was conveying is the totality aspect of the law. I understand that the "is" portion is (LOL) the critical part. IMO, from minimalist perspective, the First Law could show up as simple as: Is

Yeah, that's a bit too simple, but saying that "is, exists" is redundant. And yet, in axioms regarding 'nature of reality,' I understand (I think) why we phrase it as such.

With all that said, I am spinning on the "everything" part of the assertion. For me this is critical, as I believe the totality of the assertion matters, literally. And I concede that this is a bit semantical, but as a comprehensive, fundamental law, I see it as obvious.

Conclusion:
In our efforts to understand reality we intuitively place meanings, on (at least) behaviors, actions, and things.

Agreed. Though wondering if within context of First Law, are "behaviors" and "actions" to be considered things? I venture to say that - no we are not saying these are things.

Through this we develop rational thought and reasoning that we can build upon in order enrich that meaning. In other words, we intuitively discover/learn a foundation of which build upon. Therefore, one could describe that, the extent of what we know of reality relies on the extent of ability to apply meaning to it, in the sense of both rational and irrational conception.

I would likely replace know with "understand." Perhaps trivial, but follows from what was already stated. And as I read, "ability to apply meaning to it" I get idea of "it" as either not us, and/or outside of us, when I literally believe we are it. Either way, I would rephrase what you are saying, and perhaps this is just spin, though I would say, "the extent of what we understand about reality is interdependent of ability to derive meaning from within it."

So if we are to understand reality further, we must investigate how these meanings come about, how they are constructed and modeled, and furthermore, the extents or capacity they can be applied and related.

I can grant this, but it seems presumptuous. I don't believe that it is necessarily rational to investigate how meanings are constructed and modeled, and furthermore the extents or capacity they can be related.

I grant that it may be desired, though not following how it is necessitated to further understanding. Honestly, you had me at "we must investigate." But I think "how meaning comes about" follows nicely from what was already stated.

What this tells us about what the theory communicates is; at the source of it all that exists is a system of; first, pure source (energy). Second, pure form. Third, pure choice(although I hesitate to use that word, it does not fully convey the concept of relative perspective). And that it is this system of sets that is needed to "close" it off and produce a perspective or observation.

While this follows from what you had in paragraph right before it, I already conveyed that I don't know if that necessarily follows in rational way. Or more precisely, I say it seems presumptuous. The belief in existence of "pure form" is presumptuous, from assertion of Law number 1 - Everything that is, exists (as everything).

I'm not even sure I understand what pure form means, but humorously, that strikes me as what is near heart of this discussion, understand what "pure form" is and/or means.

For your third one, I'd probably go with (pure) interpretation, though I hesitate to put word "pure" in there as it seems presumptuous. Furthermore, I wonder if choice / interpretation is something that is / exists? Thus I see it as we presume it exists, and/or is occurring, but is ultimately what is being investigated for further understanding of reality of what is and what is not.

In follows that anything considered a part of the universe must then be within these conclusions here. If it were not, then what?

Then perhaps the First Law (of Totality) is rational, and the other 2 axioms add meaning (technically no-thing) to the mental construct, in attempt to further understanding of nature of reality.

Continuing, if reality were to have a function that was incapable to be included with this theory, then we would be left with a problem that existed beyond anything we can discern as real.

Does reality need us to discern if it is real? I believe that "everything that is, exists (as everything)" need not be discerned, interpreted, formulated, conceived of, in order for it to a) exist and b) hold itself together, rationally speaking.

That is, if this theory can produce the bottom line breakdown of thought and its laws, it would follow that we could make conclusions that the universes behavior will be filtered by these laws of thought in the very literal sense that the universe (any comprehendable item or behavior) is literally thought, a compilation of 'events' grinded through these laws, to produce a foundation that other meanings in the universe can be formed by; Then, that possibility of conception would not be a part of this universe. This raises the question, of how can we ponder something not apart of our universe (our consciousness), without developing some notion of a unknown part of consciousness. If it is not rational or irrational (limited series of being) then what? Comprehension of eternal? maybe... i dunno.

My response to question underlined - By allowing. Allowing for (simple) thought that there is more known about universe (in it's totality) than through what is understood via models of meanings (or symbols, or things).

As consciousness, we can be in this (physical) universe, but not necessarily of it. An analogy would be how I can be in a night dream, but that is not necessarily the reality from which my true consciousness resides. Even while all the available "evidence" around me would substantiate that I too have form like everything in that reality. And yet knowledge (or wakefulness of consciousness) would tell me my nature is not bound to that reality, even while in midst of "it" I am convinced that some of it (really most of it) is not me, not of my making alone. And yet, I am literally deriving all meaning from the manifestations I have "constructed" (I'd say projected) onto the nature of (this relative) reality.

I believe it is in the axiom that - Everything that is, exists (as Everything)" - in which all rationality springs from and ultimately returns to. Though it is somewhere between, enjoyable and challenging to interpret Everything as "something" and "no-thing" and "not me." Thus understanding the nature of reality from that system, is understanding nature of ourselves, while pretending it is not about us, it is about "it" (reality outside / around).