Science Forums 2

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Jway

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

Well, I thank your for the contribution and effort. The start up of this thread was a bit messy in my opinion. However, I hope I can respond to this to make up for that mistake.

In respect to rational thought, the "is" part, is very critical indeed. Removing something that is, essentially changes it to something it as "is not".

Originally Posted by Jway

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.

I believe based on the direction this effort is going every 'thing' can said to have two types, and therefore be divided into two sections.
section 1)A concept produced by the tools of our stimulus senses(the is-am/ ism)[making this term up as a tool in this post]. This concept is not a direct representation of the source of the stimuli, only an assumed conclusion in order to relate a meaning to it, so that it may become known. 2)An event representing a thing that is recognized by a tool outside of our senses, non stimulus, which is then to be interpreted by our sensory tools (the ism) to apply a concept or lack of a concept to it.

That is, I begin with these statements as it is familiar and understandable. However, I will attempt to suggest a change to them which provides, that the things outside of our stimulus are symmetries of the things within or a part of out stimulus concepts. That is, the model is identical, yet the (yet to be proven)naive conception is divided or somehow separated.

Originally Posted by Jway

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.

Based on my statements above, yes they are things relative to an instrument. That is, it causes an interaction, and therefore has property, even if it is unknown to the ism. That is, it contains no conceptual meaning (that we are yet aware of) however is capable to be involved with the ism.

Originally Posted by Jway

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."

I can agree with this replacement of understand, for know, in the concepts for the ism.

Originally Posted by Jway

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 suppose I can respond (and am always responding on the voice of this work, not the voice of my beleifs) by saying that the meaning is the construction, the meaning is the model. That is, if existence has/is potential, than that which exists is meaning, and therefore, the measurements that dissect what we observe as physical reality is the actual dissection of meaning (a rational thought).

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).

One of the aspects to this is that, the irrational can be shown how it is rational. That is, the irrational we know (like an apple is an orange) is what is pure, whole, and one. Again, this is something I am working to prove.

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.

I hope what has been stated above suffices to fill in that void of non-understanding. In a sense yes, unity is the heart of these axioms as a whole. Unity of all.

It is presumptuous! But that is why I'd like to test the validity of these presumptions. Tests, I am certain that be developed.

Originally Posted by Jway

but is ultimately what is being investigated for further understanding of reality of what is and what is not.

Precisely. The investigation is to demonstrate how things that are A), and are not A, can be proved in a specific context as neither, A, or not A, and instead, they are both ____ fill the blank (x, z, g...)

Originally Posted by Jway

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.

I would say that it would be interesting to demonstrate proofs through experiment. Would it not be expected that a fundamental theory would not only be final but would be based on the connecting of all?

Originally Posted by Jway

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.

Do you find it interesting to consider that in a dream, a convincing universe exists for the dreamer? And yet, while someone observes you in sleep, he may discover nothing else occurring besides a series of sets of elementary interactions? And then when you are awake, he can discover nothing else occurring besides a series of sets of elementary interactions? And the form that represents you as a human (the body), has not changed in any way other than how it normally behaves (other then it was still and slow to respond). Meanwhile, you considered yourself to be conscious throughout the entire episode?

Originally Posted by Jway

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).

I think I can agree here based on (((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).))). Except for, the pretending aspect. Even if this can be proved, I don't think we intentionally pretend such an doing, if we are ignorant of the function even occurring. It may be that if we become aware of the proof and the act of game of It and me, the ism, and the it.. Which I suspect would be put before us some form of a choice.