Q&A: What About It?
Question
What is the metaphysical status of a question?
Preliminary Answer
A question is half the fundamental structure supporting logic. Any valid question necessitates a response i.e. an answer that completes the continuity either stated or implied by the question.*
*Such an answer need not express something that can be found within our empirical world.
Premise – Question & Answer are the two building blocks of continuity.
Supporting Argument
Continuity – any series of things that bears a narrative. A series of things that bears a narrative has a beginning, middle & end. Continuity is thus temporal.
Logic – the metaphysical glue that binds things together as a narrative. It is an emergent property of continuity.
The rules of inference tell us that our world, both in it’s a priori and empirical modes, is a narrative & temporal reality.
The rules of inference tell us that the innate structure of our world is a concentrical & deducible continuity of Chinese boxes.
Application – the raw data supplied by observation gets structured into knowledge & wisdom (judgment) through articulation of useful questions.
Premise --The dialectical method is the foundational query tool of continuity/logic/narrative.
Main Answer
Question, the heart of the dialectical method, metaphysically speaking, embodies the motive force that animates the process of raw data eventually becoming knowledge & wisdom.
Note – Question is the supreme tool of science & philosophy.
What is the metaphysical status of a question?
Preliminary Answer
A question is half the fundamental structure supporting logic. Any valid question necessitates a response i.e. an answer that completes the continuity either stated or implied by the question.*
*Such an answer need not express something that can be found within our empirical world.
Premise – Question & Answer are the two building blocks of continuity.
Supporting Argument
Continuity – any series of things that bears a narrative. A series of things that bears a narrative has a beginning, middle & end. Continuity is thus temporal.
Logic – the metaphysical glue that binds things together as a narrative. It is an emergent property of continuity.
The rules of inference tell us that our world, both in it’s a priori and empirical modes, is a narrative & temporal reality.
The rules of inference tell us that the innate structure of our world is a concentrical & deducible continuity of Chinese boxes.
Application – the raw data supplied by observation gets structured into knowledge & wisdom (judgment) through articulation of useful questions.
Premise --The dialectical method is the foundational query tool of continuity/logic/narrative.
Main Answer
Question, the heart of the dialectical method, metaphysically speaking, embodies the motive force that animates the process of raw data eventually becoming knowledge & wisdom.
Note – Question is the supreme tool of science & philosophy.
Comments (87)
Define "question".
The above command can be rephrased as a question: What is a question?
This, as you can see, is itself a question but that would mean you already know what a question is (you're asking one).
You can't define "question" without knowing what a question is but you can't know what a question is without defining "question".
:snicker:
The question of question, as it expresses in your language above, appears as paradox. With this claim I'm asserting that question of question, a two-tiered construction, defines as a curious singleton that occupies two places at once.
In our everyday experience of discrete singletons, paradox is seeming anomaly that science, with its grounding in cause_effect continuity & its emergent property, inference, works around via Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic set theory.
Take note that avoidable paradox & unavoidable paradox are two very different situations.
There is a conundrum, of ancient vintage, that examines the endless divisibility of the number line WRT walking about in the real world. If space is endlessly divisible, thus suggesting an endless journey across any interval of space, no matter how small, then how does a walking person ever get anywhere?
The conundrum, obviously, is not about the impossibility of walking over distance. It's about the difficulty of explaining foot travel in light of the observation about the number line.
In your Chicken-and-Egg Problem, you address defining/knowing a question.
You don't address asking a question. Just as I can walk progressively through space, infinite number line notwithstanding, I can think progressively through question of question, circularity of reasoning notwithstanding.
Although, at present, I can't explain the permeability of your circular reasoning conundrum, nonetheless I can observe said permeability, and thus proceed to examine fruitfully the role of question of question within logic.
Quoting 180 Proof
(These embedded links are questions, no?)
Serious questions. In light of QM, does the cognitive non-locality of word games signify something empirical?
Confiteur I don't know how to extricate myself from the loop formed by definition & question in re questions.
What is a question? is an impossible question - to ask it, one must know what a question is but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what a question is. This is the paradox.
Can we generalize the above thus, What is an X?
Must we parse it likewise? To ask it, one must know what an X is, but it also indicates the questioner doesn't know what an X is.
I, questioner = X, and I, questioner ? X
I suppose it has something to do with politenss and etiquette.
Generically, a question is an expression that consists of a variable.
:confused:
Quoting 180 Proof
Firstly, the statement normally appears to be nonsense, a point Agent Smith emphasizes. So, of course, in my translation of his paradox into my own paraphrase, the apparent nonsense is preserved. I express the paraphrase in route to examining whether Agent Smith's point is true.
In trying to write with the economy of symbolic logic, I find no symbol denoting examines, which is how I wish my statement quoted above to be read. Thus
I, questioner examine X, and I, questioner not examine X.
Instead of examine as the verb, is superset (in the sense of "encompass") better?
I, questioner ? X, and I, questioner ? X.
I believe, as you suggest, the differentiation of What is a question? and Define question is false. When I define something, I answer the question, What is it? Thus What is a question? equals Define question.
That you acknowledge existence of a resolution of the paradox shows you believe examination of question in general is possible.
I don't, however, rush to conclude your paradox is self-enclosed word play.
Premises
Undecidable ? meaningless
Ambiguous ? unintellibible
Quoting 180 Proof
Can you reconfigure this statement as a paradox?
Quoting karl stone
Since I don't know if this refers to the volition choosing a single focus, or the differential in vertical stacking of prioritized activities i.e. multi-tasking, I need an elaboration.
:grin: Thank-you!
Which question is that?
Quoting Ciceronianus
Casual answer - any question
Formal answer - Socratic Method > Elenchus
Rhetorical questions?
Yes.
If that's the case, then questions which aren't questions are questions. If Socrates' (which is to say, Plato's) questions are questions, of course, then I suppose rhetorical questions would have to be as well; those questions posed by Plato via his character Socrates were always intended to have a particular effect and never intended as actual inquiries. But I question whether all questions are alike, and think they vary in purpose and according to context.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Ciceronianus
The grammar that syntaxes question denotes form & function that operates independent of the sub-textual intentions of the speaker/writer.
Placing a filter over the grammar of question, such that we read it as a formal question that, in actuality, intends to make a statement, i.e. a rhetorical question, is a contextual maneuver that converts query into statement by social agreement. If this socially constructed reading of question as statement supports paradoxical word play, the grammarian of question can read it as would-be paradoxical piffle.
Quoting Ciceronianus
If question, as signifier, possesses coherence, then a categorical examination of the grammar of question is possible & issues of speaker/writer intentions, sub-text & context are non-fatal to it.
As a test of this claim, I ask you to parse the following definition of question so as to configure it as a definition that supports characterization of same as paradox.
Quoting 180 Proof
I think the logic supporting the general grammar of question, as defined above is
What Xa? ? Xb, if Xa & Xb = Xab
I'm not sure whether you're saying, in that case, that rhetorical questions are, or are not, questions for your purposes (unless you maintain that purpose has nothing to do with whether or not there is a question--because there is only one true question or form of question). Nor am I sure whether you're addressing grammar, or metaphysics, or if they're one and the same.
What about questions asked during the cross-examination of a witness? Are those really questions? The lawyer often knows the answer which will be given.
Quoting ucarr
So, it's grammar we're concerned with?
Without question. :smirk:
Quoting ucarr
A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes:
I'm trying to get sharp focus on whether question plays a principal role in information transfer -- rather like Messenger RNA. If so, might this be an underlying principle & core function of question? Moreover, as we have it from one of our great pillars,
“…we are obliged to inquire how it is possible for there
to be no philosophy; and in inquiring we philosophize, for inquiry is
the cause of Philosophy.”
-Aristotle
Through the lens of this quote, we can surmise such a core function being the lynchpin of philosophy as a whole. Let us, then, recede context, with all of its hubristic self-importance, including sub-textual intentions, into the background for the moment.
Quoting Ciceronianus
The word denotes something. If someone maintains this denotation is completely plastic within the ecosystem of context, then question has no essential function & meaning. I doubt Aristotle would sanction such a conclusion, as it posits the philosophical center of gravity amidst the swirling currents of atmospheric word play. Not a suitable instrument for examining the good life.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I believe grammar & syntax are probative material for mounting a metaphysical premise with supporting argument but, no, I don't think they're equivalent to metaphysics. The relationship is more like grammar & syntax as the foot soldiers, preparing the battlefield for a great cataclysm wherein King meets King in contest.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Grammar & syntax are, at present, town criers who can best tell us important things we'd like to know about our newly burnished noble, Lord Question.
A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.
I think I want to put this forward as the premise of my conversation here.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm puzzled by your skepticism toward a statement you originally quoted as a general description of question.
I think it's a good definition. It makes clear how question is rooted in a curious juxtaposition of the known & the unknown.
Ignorance is the parent of knowledge
Knowledge is the parent of ignorance
Lord Question, I suspect, plays a key role in the shuttle diplomacy between knowledge & ignorance.
1. What is gravity? (interrogative)
2. Define gravity. (command)
3. Gravity is a _________ (fill in the blank)
4. Gravity is (MCQ)
a. A type of apple
b. Einstein's cat
c. A force
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
A question, as per Shannon Information Theory, is a conjunctive proposition (vide supra 4, MCQ).
equation template v1, where to be ? =
Quoting Agent Smith
implied equation
Quoting Agent Smith
equation template v2
Quoting Agent Smith
conjunctive proposition ? equation, with variables X?, X?, X?, X?, X?
What have the five above instances in common? They juxtapose the known & the unknown within a field wherein the two states cohere as an interactive couplet.
From here I see that question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).
So, you think question-of-question is, metaphysically speaking, paradoxical.
We can certainly do so, if we choose to, but I think we should recognize that in that case we don't consider how questions are used in our ordinary discourse. It would be like trying to understand or define language without considering irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, nuance, etc.
I have no intention to ignore, ultimately, the many applications of question in context, with multiple grammatical_syntactical variations etc. Lawyers, rhetorical actors, couldn't thrive (or even function) in the courtroom without these accoutrements, nor could dramatic actors upon the stage.
For explanation, let me say that here I'm trying to deconstruct the complex & great edifice of English in order to examine closely its foundation & frame through the lens of epistemology's greatest messenger, Lord Question.
King Language & Lord Question have a diplomatic relationship of exquisite protocols outfitted with lavish filigree (to which you are wed).
What are some essential features & functions of the platform (question) that transfers information intra-linguistically? (You provide a telling example of the messenger role of Lord Question by stressing how he conveys meaning (including equivalence) even when stripped clean of his diplomatic credentials.)
The upshot is just what I said at the beginning; What's the metaphysical status of a question?
I like my focus here because you, and many others, are completely focused on the application of question, whereas I wish to focus on the innate form & behavior of question.
:up: :grin:
A question, if it's pertinent to the answer it seeks, shares a link with said answer that is a variant of the transitive property.
Question is a platform that makes known/unknown work together to isolate an equivalence (identity).
Let’s look at an example that articulates the details of my premise.
3+x=5
3 & 5 = known (underlined)
x = unknown (no underline)
Question - What do 3 & 5 have in common?
Answer – 3
Question, shuttling sequentially, discovers what 3 & 5 have in common, 3, thus linking them.
Question – What do 3 & 5 have not in common?
Answer – 2
We can say that these two questions, taken together, demonstrate known & unknown, each expressing one in terms of the other.
After 3 & 5 each express in terms of the other, both as known & unknown, x, the unknown, becomes isolated, thus x = 2.
Once the common ground between 3 & 5 i.e. 3 is established (transitive property) the disjunction separating 3 & 5 , the separator, 2, becomes isolated.
Now, x = unknown, becomes 2 = known.
So, 3 + 2 = 5
All of the terms are now known & equation of identity, linking two different expressions of one position on the number line, gets expressed.
We see here that Question, in its essence, functions as the messenger RNA, or shuttle diplomat, establishing, via the transitive property, the common ground linking both sides of the equation, thus isolating the unknown, who now, become known, enables the equation to express an identity across known values.
If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is unnecessary.
If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible.
Ergo,
Inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.
1. Known unknowns (unanswered questions)
2. Unknown unknowns (unasked questions)
3. Unknown knowns (memory read failure)
Quoting Agent Smith
As you again attack with Occam's Razor, I'll make bold & declare that logic_math_science operate meticulously, expansively & successfully between the above two razor's edges.
A quick review of humanity's empirical experience shows that inquiry starts with partial information about what's to be discovered. This is clearly demonstrated in my example. The abundance of partial information experimentation, the axiomatic starting point for logic_math_science discoveries, being something common you fail to register here, suggests you fundamentally misunderstand inquiry.
Quoting Agent Smith
The above razor cut reads dramatically on paper, however, within the empirical world, it excludes only an extremely acute angle: cases at the polar extremes. These amount to nothing more than straw man arguments that misrepresent real inquiry_discovery.
Semantically speaking ...
Quoting ucarr
This question still doesn't make sense to me after two thread pages.
Metaphysical, as I'm using it here = essential, invariant identity.
The point to Meno's paradox is a question is either a student's or a teacher's, one is impossible (unknown unknowns) and one is unnecessary (known knowns).
How do you perceive the metaphysical?
Categorically.
If you can elaborate, please do so.
Quoting 180 Proof
Have any thoughts about the geometry inhering within a 4-space environment?
I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?
Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.
If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?
Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.
I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...
Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state
Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).
The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.
In contrast, in 4D space, non-sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions as simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by non-sequential time.
Consider two parallel boxes.
In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.
In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.
In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.
Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.
In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.
I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.
At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.
I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.
In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.
This is a stupid question! :snicker: Falls under @180 Proof's category of Unknown knowns i.e. you know but you don't know that you do...know!
I hope 180 Proof will be gracious enough to provide a link to a post of his which elucidates the points (it involved Donald Rumsfeld in case you forgot 180 Proof).
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
Did you read my 4D statement just above your
Quoting Agent Smith
statement?
If time can be eliminated from the equation, all bets are off, oui? It's hard for me to conceive of an atemporal universe. Is it just me or is it the same for everybody? I dunno! I would love to analyze this interesting topic but I don't even know where to begin.
The above implies What is a question? encompasses a spectrum of possible identities.
Please list some members of this spectrum, especially those members that are non-questions.
If I cannot state, without doubt, the essential nature of a thing, and yet, there is no doubt I'm looking at & contemplating the nature of an existing thing, then, it follows logically, that that thing being contemplated supports a range of speculations about what it might be.
I'm asking you to list some (or all) of the members of the range (set) of speculations about what What is a question? might be. I want you to take special care to include members (reasonably accurate WRT the apparent identity of the thing) that are non-questions.
It follows that a putative question finally undecidable as such might actually be not a question at all but, instead, a declaration, command, exclamation, expletive etc.
This link is to an old post I guess might answer what you're asking for
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/343418
which I've already provided here (down 2 more links) on page 1 of this thread. I'm also still sticking with my stipulative "essence"
Quoting 180 Proof
for the sake of this discussion, even though my very short survey of question-types shows that question is more of a family resemblance concept (like "games") than not.
Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132
This looks like the two (supposed) polarities get expressed, one in terms of the other. This is entanglement. Contrast ? independence. Your configuration of entanglement here implies some complexities that might undermine your goal of categorical separation. Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real. We know this because gravity, a fundamental force, entangles everything, even within the realm of a priori cognition.
Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?
Well said. Fully agree. Myth of the atomic object.
:grin: :up:
The question of all questions is: what is?
Or: what is being? So all questions are questions about being/beings.
This according to some thinkers, anyway. And those I happen to agree with.
In the apophatic tradition I think this ur-question is answered, rather than merely addressed, by reformulating it 'what necessarily is not' e.g. .
Your above claims are congruent with the claims that motivated them i.e. my previous claims. This shows we're surveying the same general terrain of data, but our conclusions are different.
The certainty of separation of our bivalent logic: on/off; yes/no; open/closed; negative/positive introjects some of the idealism component of metaphysics.
It's clear to me that the positivity of positive is linked to and dependent upon the negativity of negative (and vice versa) as part of a network interweave. Speaking ontically, you can't know one without the other.
So, per your statement,
Quoting 180 Proof
it's clear two branches of the same tree are not pure, categorical polarities, utterly without intersection.
Bivalent "opposites" are distinguished by contrast, however, contrast ? independence.
I do think you can establish & exploit logically the contrast between entangled valences.
I don't think you can use a bivalent methodology to establish the categorical certainty of one valence & the categorical impossibility of its opposing valence.
This is why QM keeps telling us one gate can be simultaneously open/closed. As the lynchpin of quantum computing, QM simultaneity, the anti-thesis of bivalence, seems to be working.
One of the shortcomings of modal logic is its role as a blindfold opaquing the limited domain of paradox.
I responded in that thread.
I don't use "a bivalent methodology", just a non-oppositional, non-exclusionary alternative to the Aristotlean / Thomistic 'mainstream'. You're reading your own concerns, ucarr, into what i've expressed here which misreads my stated goal.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Of course I'm reading my own concerns into what you've expressed here. Nothing unusual (or improper) about that. Don't you sometimes read your own concerns into the expressed intentions of others? It's not the case that we members here have all confined ourselves to our own bubbles.
In fact, this very conversation is specifically concerned with interrelationship (certainly from my end, and, I think, also from your end).
My conclusion diverges from yours. Is it a misreading of what you've written? Let's see.
You say above you conceive of categorical principles via negation.
The key word here is via. One of its definitions is by way of; through
If you want to categorically negate something, is taking a route to that goal by way of selfsame something the best way? In parallel, let's say I want to get to heaven. Is going through hell the surefire way to arrive there? Granted, it's a surefire way to arrive at an appreciation of heaven. This is so because hell is an extreme contrast to heaven. But I'm not seeking appreciation of heaven. I'm seeking the heaven itself. Let's say a guide tells you the way to heaven is through that door over yonder that has the word "HELL" printed onto it. Would such a directive give you pause, or would you rush through the door?
I use the above to elaborate contrast ? independence.
Not in a genuine dialogue where understanding mutually different positions is the goal. I've very little interest in merely exchanging monologues which I find is unproductive and arrogant. When I reply to your posts, for instance, I'm taking issue to what you're written as best as I can tease-out your meanings. Only then, when confirmed by your responses, do I criticize according to (A) any problematic reasoning and/or (B) questionable assertions contained therein which are contrary to my own concerns. To lead with my own concerns is more or less to shadowbox with myself and therefore to learn nothing. I don't come to TPF just to merely monologue like fools and trolls on do on Reddit.
Yet I've not argued for or against any thesis, therefore – so far only describing an alternative approach to"metaphysics" – have not proposed any "conclusions" here; and yet, you contend "my conclusion diverges from yours". Your disagreeing with your strawman, ucarr, not with anything I've written. :roll:
Not at all. I guess you didn't bother with the link I provided to an old post where I discuss "via negation" aka apophatic metaphysics. If you're not going to read what I write for comprehension, ucarr, that's quite all right but let me know so I won't waste any more time answering your questions.
Do you claim in the above you are not propounding a method of discovery by what you conclude to be proper procedure?
If I understand correctly what is meant by thesis (even if only somewhat) i.e. a statement or theory that is put forward (herein by you exploited as a means of self-identification which, by the way, I asked of you amidst my (alleged) oblivion to who you are), then your thought-provoking response to my query, re: your metaphysics, contains an implicit argument for the above-mentioned thesis.
Do you not claim below (as an additional support to the above) that one type of methodology, apophaticism, is superior to another, cataphaticism?
Quoting 180 Proof
If you're willing to acknowledge having passed judgment upon two types of methodology, then proceed to explain how your thesis about which of the two is correct is not based upon the above, which, to me, reads like a premise.
Quoting 180 Proof
ap·o·pha·tic | ?ap??fadik |
adjective Theology
(of knowledge of God) obtained through negation. The opposite of cataphatic.
Maybe you should take another look at how apophatic is defined.
I don't deny my ever present self-interest. It's called staying alive in a dangerous world.
To you I say, "Don't jump to hasty conclusions." This especially in light of your claim to the effect that,
Quoting 180 Proof
... as Variables are to Values.
On target! Spot on, mon ami, spot on!
You rendered me an important service when you responded to my closing statement, chapter 01. A timeless universe, as implied by my original statement, and made explicit by your feedback, looks like a fatal flaw to me too.
I've addressed the issue of the timeless universe.
I need your feedback on chapter 02. If you're willing to give feedback, any flaws you can point out will, again, render me an important service.
I hope you'll say "yes." My writing needs engagement with a rigorous critic.
The chapter is only two pages long.
Are you willing to scour my closing statement for flaws with your elliptical exigesis? (I always read all of your links to supporting text.)
Chapters 01 & 02 are directly below.
I begin my closing statement by claiming What is a question? is not an impossible question. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
Let me start with my first counter-narrative. Re: the claim asking a question necessarily implies knowing question makes me yell: "Wait a minute!" By parallel argument I can claim driving a car necessarily implies knowing cars. Really?
Curiously, I can use my own ignorance as part of this argument. When I started the conversation, I didn't know What is a question?, in parallel with This sentence is false., expresses a paradox. But I nonetheless raised the question didn't I? So, seems to me asking a question can come from the mouth of ignorance re: knowing that What is a question?, in particular, is a paradox. I can scarcely claim to have known the state of being of that question at the time of my asking it.
If a parrot repeats some of my phrases, do we have evidence the parrot knows what it's saying?
Asking a question does not necessarily imply knowing the state of being (nature) of question.
I continue with my best counter-narrative. What is a question? is not an impossible question because...
Premise -- paradox = higher dimensional entity in collapsed state; how a 4D object looks in 3D.
Henceforth, I will try to examine the vertical relationship between cubic space (3D) & tesseractic space (4D).
The core concept says in 3D space, sequential time inheres & thus one thing occupies one position at a time as two positions by one thing requires movement across a time interval always positive.
In 4D space, complex time inheres & thus one thing occupies multiple positions. Simultaneous multiple positions by one thing are supported by complex time. Under this construction, simple time (as in our 3D experience), at a given position, flows along as always even as the non-locality of hyper-space sustains one thing as multiples occupying multiple positions simultaneously. The non-locality of hyper-space renders tessaractic reality as a type of multi-verse.
Consider two parallel boxes.
In cubic space, binary logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can be in one box or the other.
In tesseractic space, hyper-logic inheres, thus a zero or a one can simultaneously inhabit both boxes.
In 3D space, paradox expresses the hyper-logic of 4D space in its collapsed state, as the fourth spacial dimension required for expansion of hyper-logic is absent.
Hyper-logic, in its collapsed state, expresses as an undecidable, timeless switching between two "contradictory" positions that cancel.
In its expanded state, hyper-logic expresses as simultaneity of multiple positions in non-sequential time i.e. non-locality. The "contradictory" switching in 3D space becomes non-locality in 4D space.
I don't know if the human brain, in its current state of evolution, can directly experience the non-local simultaneity of multiple positions of entities in the 4D of hyper-space.
At any rate, as you are seeing here, the strangeness of QM can be navigated with some ease of comprehension by shuttling across the vertical relationship between 3D & 4D space.
I close this section with a category title I suggest as a label for examinations like the one above: Boundary Ontology. At the core of this category is study of geometric forms preserved across topological shuttling between 3D & 4D versus geometric forms expanded/collapsed across 3D & 4D spaces.
In the next chapter, I will try to examine some key attributes inhering within the hyper-space of tesseract.
8 days ago
06-21-22 Chapter 02
Now an answer to What is a question? can be expressed with the apparent problem of paradox taken into consideration.
Premise – Question = cognitive motion.
By working through a sequence of math operations that progressively isolates the unknown in terms of the known, the process of question arrives at an answer that, all along, was embedded within the question.
I can argue that question & answer are different expressions of one unitary truth. The difference that appears to the reason is an apparent difference in the forms of ideas.
The query process draws a line of continuity between the different forms of ideas, thus linking the different forms logically. Question is thus an essential tool of information & knowledge. This, in turn, makes query indispensable to philosophy.
I can say that philosophy is question.
Premise – Question-of-question = higher order cognitive motion.
What is a complex question?
In this context, complex question doesn’t mean a question that entails a complicated, multi-part answer. A first order question can entail such an answer.
Herein, a complex question is a query that unfolds in 4D as an expansion from the paradox of question-of-question as perceived in 3D.
In the 3D view of question-of-question, there is a circularity of reasoning that posits two, contradictory claims on equal footing, thus rendering the claim undecidable as a whole.
Through the lens of question defined as a process that discovers logical continuity between differing forms of an idea, question-of-question seems to fuse together inconsistent claims into a strange & unjustifiable continuity.
This fugue state of continuity is the telltale marker of a higher dimensional object in its collapsed state as it resides at a dimensional matrix that excludes one of more of the object’s dimensions.
When the query process terminates in a paradox, the inquisitor should conclude that the object of their search possesses at least one additional dimension beyond the dimensional matrix of the query. The presence of this additional dimension presses against, as it were, the boundary of the dimensional matrix that cannot accommodate expansion of the additional dimension.
In order to remedy this fugue state of continuity, the inquisitor must expansively unfold the paradox by catapulting it upwards from reality into hyper-reality. In short, this catapult entails an upwardly dimensional expansion from 3D into 4D.
Forward Speculations – Visualization in 4D
Henceforth, my narrative tries to throw open the shutters on hyper-reality by means of speculative visualization.
Hyper-reality – a dimensional matrix that includes four spatial dimensions + time.
The conception herein, with the possible exceptions of some details, is not new.
Higher-order cognitive motion, rather than working through a sequence of math operations that progressively (sequentially) isolates the unknown in terms of the known, instead propagates such a cognitive continuity instantaneously.
Instantaneous propagation of logical continuity is the resultant of unfolding question-of-question in 4D. This description, with its claim of instant continuity, sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s because my description of 4D is herein rendered through a 3D narrative.
The instantaneity of question-of-question, although infinitely faster, resembles intuition. I can call it super-intuition.
Premise – hyper-question, or the process of hyper-query = omniscience. This is a state wherein question & answer are always one, never separated in sequential time.
If we imagine a sentient being whose natural state is 4D, as distinguished from human, whose native state, being 3D, must use abstract reasoning techniques in order to “perceive” 4D, then we understand that such 4D being knows all answers to all questions instantly.
The trick of this claim is that it presents a seemingly perplexing, all-encompassing continuity wherein question-answer are merged. Moreover, it suggests that a native 4D being always knows all. These are tricks of perplexity caused by the rendering of a native 4D being within my 3D narrative.
QM opened the door to these seemingly perplexing observations regarding elementary forces & particles. It seems to be the case that investigations into elementary physics opens additional dimensions that, rendered in 3D narratives, present wildly counter-intuitive pictures of reality.
I can argue that QM is our primer for Boundary Ontology. After all, QM, as the label says, concerns itself with navigation of discrete units of forces & particles i.e. quanta.
In the next chapter, I will explore some attributes of the multi-self phenomenon.
No. (You need an editor.)
Your replies to my post suggest otherwise.
Thank-you!
Non-oppositional & non-exclusionary are modifiers I apply to the real/unreal polarities at the center of your metaphysical acid test. In claiming the polarities are entangled, I argue that the modifiers mitigate the polarization of the polarities. For this reason, my argument continues, a simple real/unreal switch as acid test for what is categorically real or unreal introduces a volume of imprecision unacceptable for metaphysics, especially as you define metaphysics as the categorical.
The upshot of my argument says real/unreal are limited & soft polarities, and thus they’re not suitable as acid test for the hard boundaries of the categorical, your asserted lynchpin for the metaphysical.
Note – In the instant you claim categorical, you lay the groundwork for characterization of your position as including (if not prioritizing) bivalence.
If, on the other hand, it is your wish to acknowledge existence of degrees of reality, as distinguished from the simple, bi-valent switch of real/unreal, then your apophaticism, now shaking hands with catophaticism, expands beyond categorical classification to include the grayscale of the not strictly physical-cum-not strictly real milieu of Meinong.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
When you attack me, implying my character is self-enclosed & egotistical, you seem to be misreading yourself. “…mutually different positions…” as I understand it, means two different positions conjoined in dialogue. If this is correct, then, as you say, the work involves carefully distilling all important details on both sides of the argument. Therefore, when I say,
Quoting ucarr
it should be clear I’m describing a meeting of the minds of two parties. Well, that means evaluating your terms in terms of my own terms. I don’t suppose you think I would evaluate your terms in terms of your terms. Not being you, how could I do that?
As individuals, we always bring our own terms into confrontation with the terms of others. Being selves ourselves, how can we do otherwise?
Quoting 180 Proof
How can you suppose I haven’t read your link when the heart & soul of my counter-narrative to your metaphysical acid test attacks (whether rightly or wrongly) the simplistic bivalence of categorical real/unreal? From the start I’ve been arguing their mitigating entanglement.
If your categorical acid test runs parallel to the polar entanglement of real/unreal (as opposed to running through it, which is what I think), then point it out to me as I’ve missed it.
Now consideration of what’s really important.
If you want to break off dialoguing with me (I don’t want to break off dialoguing with you) on moral grounds of bad character mine, that’s an emotional value that scuttles the power of the above verbiage. In that event, I will, of course, respect your privacy and leave off from further attempts to communicate with you. However, before you ring down the metal bars locking us into prison cells of alienation, I want you to cheat a little bit and answer my question,
Do you agree that query is the spine of both logic & philosophy?
Getting this question answered is one of the main goals of my conversation.
If we must conclude our interesting & informative (and now testy) interactions, then why not bookmark things with a categorical closure?
You're monologuing (with yourself) again. Nothing to do with anything I've written. :yawn:
Be that as it may, I hope you see my intention is to dialogue with you, not ignore you.
If I fail utterly to understand your positions, that's a good reason for you to ignore me, however, as yet, you haven't, so for now I turn my attention to the centrality of query WRT logic & philosophy.
So far, in this thread, I've gotten Agent Smith's deflection (via paradox) and your silence.
I know query is an essential information systems operator that links all of what we can know.
I believe, with increasing confidence, all data forms are linked primevally, and query, like messenger RNA, manipulates data templates across platforms in a process that isolates a datum from data like a droplet from the ocean.
These observations sound like conventional wisdom until I declare "question links sentience to matter directly and therefore cognition, no less than matter, holds possession of an axiomatic status; as the blueness of blue, so the contemplation of thought."
Premise - axiomatic = metaphysical ? every dimensional matrix has an arbitrary start point, and that's metaphysics beyond the categorical, unless someone can cite a dimensional matrix without a start point, but then, such a matrix, being eternal, must needs be axiomatic, and that circles us back around to metaphysical.
Quoting 180 Proof
You say I’m monologuing with myself, thus implying my oblivion WRT key statements articulated by you. Let’s examine your claim by going down the above list.
Quoting ucarr
I asked for your take on metaphysics,
Do you understand metaphysics as Aristotle understood it? He thought it was a label, as a part of a classification system, when he coined the word right? To him it was "after the physical," meaning, the not strictly physical stuff. An example is human perception. Like scientists of today, he thought metaphysics was an emergent property, arising from the physical. This view is consistent with monism-physicalism, right? Is this something like your view?[/quote]
Quoting ucarr
Can you explain, logically, how your above bolded statement (concerned with categoricals) does NOT posit real/unreal as polar opposites?
Quoting ucarr
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584132
The above link, which you gave to me, connected me to a discussion thread wherein I found the following statement by 180 Proof,
Quoting 180 Proof
When I write "acid test" re: a characterization of cataphaticism, I'm quoting you.
Quoting ucarr
As to the question of your characterization of apophaticism being concerned with establishing hard boundaries separating things, you, again, provide the answer.
Quoting 180 Proof
Can you explain, logically, how "what necessarily is not" fails to express "hard boundary"? The adverb "necessarily," as I understand it, leaves no wiggle room re: the absolutism of the boundary.
Moreover, it's clear that in your articulation of your take on metaphysics, you intend, overall, to propound a methodology that establishes categorically & absolutely the real in opposition to the unreal.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if you make specific responses to my arguments above because, of late, you've merely been naysaying my arguments with unsupported declarations.
At the very least, this exegesis refutes your claim I'm dialoguing with myself. Anyone who can read English can see that my critiques of your positions oftentimes quote you. They might be fallacious, but they're not self-enclosed monologues.
Can you point out where and how I "posit real/unreal as polar opposite"?
No you're not. I wrote
Quoting 180 Proof
Btw, what the hell is "cataphaticism"? :sweat:
A distinction (i.e. alternative) is not a "hard boundary". :roll:
Again, ucarr, this has nothing to do with anything I've written. Re: .
Let me repeat what I just posted.
Quoting 180 Proof
If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.
un-1 | ?n |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
The referent for your pronoun "It's" is apophatic metaphysics ? apophatic metaphysics does acid testing of (self-contradictory) concepts or models...
Quoting 180 Proof
As Hinduistic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Hinduisticism (a Hinduistic system of exegesis)
So Cataphatic exegesis (a type of exegesis) + ism (a distinctive practice, system or philosophy) = Cataphaticism (a Cataphatic system of exegesis)
Quoting ucarr
You're talking about the comparison of cataphatic/apophatic, whereas I'm talking about the comparison of real/unreal. Since I'm examining what cataphatic exegesis does, it's proper for me to make claims like "Cataphatic exegesis seeks to establish a hard (categorical) boundary between real/unreal."
Even so, you say,
Quoting 180 Proof
ob·so·lete | ?äbs??l?t |
adjective
1 no longer produced or used; out of date: the disposal of old and obsolete machinery | the phrase was obsolete after 1625.
It's hugely pretentious to claim the comparison of useful/useless can be characterized as alternative.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
If that's not enough, here it is from the dictionary.[quote="ucarr;712198"]
un-1 | ?n |
prefix
1 (added to adjectives, participles, and their derivatives) denoting the absence of a quality or state; not: unabashed | unacademic | unrepeatable.
• the reverse of (usually with an implication of approval or disapproval, or with another special connotation): unselfish | unprepossessing | unworldly.
What I've Learned
The song advises us, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."
The gift of attention holds a high rank. It's good to take in distinguishing details that mark individuality. Each person is endlessly specific. The dizzy array of personal features hits with the excitement of centrifugal adventure.
Noticing people, and engaging with them socially, beyond concerns about the pecking order, kicks against the barrenness of solitude.