apokrisis

The contemporary view would seem to be more subtle than simply that the Comos is "finitely infinite" like the surface of a sphere. The spacetime spher...

So we can say that the same thing can exist at two different moments in time, but not that the same thing can be in two different locations at once. T...

Yep. This is the interesting point. But then that is why Wayfarer would at least be right about the relevance of the information theoretic turn in fun...

Heh, heh. Almost surely!

Thanks. One slightly mad yet really excellent collection of phenomenological descriptions of dreaming is Andreas Mavromatis's Hypnagogia. But try it y...

Yeah, you're right that the beast within is the Western view. If we are talking Buddhism in particular, that agrees with social constructionism in tha...

Great. Glad you agree. I dunno. Why not check out actual set theory concepts like measure theory, almost surely and negligible sets. You might find ou...

Does a 100% similar = the same? And if not, how not? We are talking about a similarity with a lack of any actual difference. So don't just keep assert...

What about Plato's charioteer? Freud's romantic tripartite division of the soul has ancient roots.

Bollocks. In metaphysics, the logic of a dichotomy is used to define the complementary limits of any thing-ness or Being. No. It is completely relevan...

Yep. But I question the view by which being apart from society is in any way an improvement on the human condition. If your culture is somehow bad or ...

Well, I would describe it as the difference between biological consciousness and culturally produced self-consciousness. So animals are certainly awar...

So you are presuming that dichotomies are dualities and not in fact dichotomies? I see where you are going wrong. Dichotomies describe complementary l...

Where is the difficulty in recognising that "the same" is the idealised limit to "the similar"? Why are you obfuscating the matter with your unsound s...

Interesting OP. Speaking from psychological science, what you are noting - in my view - is that the ability to introspect on "the contents of the mind...

Hilarious. If you are going to invoke set theory formalism, then you have to stick to its rules, not just make up any old shit. If that was anything l...

It seems a stretch to say the many worlds interpretation doesn't add an unnecessary amount of complication to our metaphysics. I still prefer to hope ...

Dissipative structure. So mountains, tornadoes and tomatoes are all natural in that they are expressions of the structure that arises to dissipate ent...

I agree true AI would look to blur the lines. But consider that we would still be likely talking of hardware that is manufactured rather than grown. I...

No. You concede that what the sets have in common is the claim of being elements of the set of all sets that have no elements in common. So what you c...

Great. You concede the point. We're getting somewhere. And as you say, this applies all the way up and all the way down. Now if we are talking about s...

Interpretation might be always subjective or a point of view, but isn't it a reification to insist on the existence of a subject who does the interpre...

So you run away from the question? You don't want to risk saying your sets are the same in this regard? You pretend instead that this would be irrelev...

You mean without interpretance and a world? And what does interpretance boil down to? I agree that is a tricky issue. But it seems the productive ques...

Yep. Metaphysics which attempt to to make reality objectively dependent on the mind, or the divine, don't pan out. But a metaphysics that makes realit...

So I said that naturalism presumes hierarchies founded in ultimate simplicity. You are free to challenge that presumption as well as its consequences ...

So this thread was about an information theoretic view of reality. And the key thing is that information allows us to treat all reality as a compositi...

Naturalism presumes a world regulated by its fundamental laws. So it is a hierarchical vision where the complex arises from the ultimately simple. Sci...

Naturalism opposes itself to the supernatural in that it claims all four causes of being are immanent, not transcendent. So it lays heavy emphasis on ...

Do these two sets belong to the set of all sets that have no elements in common?

Good luck with your classical realism then.

I thought you had to show me two well-defined portions of reality which share nothing in common first. Good luck on that. You've been strangely silent...

Except now we are talking about what the Cosmos thinks about the issue. How does it understand the difference between the necessary and the accidental...

I'm asking you to think about what viewpoint justifies talking about any absolutes here. This is the standard problem of a physicist description of ma...

So you are arguing against the principle of indifference by telling me all about how you personally choose to apply it. Congrats.

I'm simply saying I accept a causal ontology in which finality always plays a real part. That finality may seem completely attentuated - as in when ta...

Hardly. It allows me to distinguish between accidents and necessities for a start. Is an oak tree still an oak tree if it is bent and twisted, blasted...

Right. So as I was saying about the principle of indifference....

Right. So as I was saying about the principle of indifference....

I find your argument to be illogical.

OK. So I am saying that out there in the real world, there is only dissimilarity in the limit. Absolute difference is a “thing” only in the sense of b...

Your replies are all over the shop. Focus a minute. What essential point do you mean to dispute? I can’t see one.

Seems you are trying to build a lot from some logical contrivance when the conversation is about physical reality. Really, all your responses are off ...

Does the Cosmos care about your centimetres? What is it that makes a difference from the Universe’s point of view?

I think you will find that objects have being objects in common. Sets have being sets in common. Etc.

If I’m stating a fact, I’m speaking in signs. And yes, I can mean to speak of the facts of the world. That is the realism in the indirectness.

Jeez. And so you agree that there are differences that don't make a difference! Sameness - like difference - is just the idealised limit. All real thi...

OK, ordinary probability is fine. So if I roll a 7 with a pair of dice, does it make a difference if I roll a 4 and a 3 instead of a 2 and a 5? Someti...

You sound so Old Testament about this. Yes, it may all be horribly wrong in your chosen metaphysics, but it follows simply from a probabilistic view o...

I was reading a nice article on Peirce/Schelling/Hegel/Emerson that you guys might appreciate. It says something deep about a "philosopher's" notion o...