"Some question the existence of metaphysical dimensions, but as long as we have three spatial dimensions and only a limited perception of time, then there is a strong argument we live at or near the 3-d." ---Nathan Coppedge
"If the fourth dimension were linear (chronological) then it would just be an extension of the 3-d, and so it wouldn't be the true 4th dimension." ---Nathan Coppedge
"It can be argued each dimension has knowledge of the lower dimensions if we assume it is a progression, or that everyone is qualified to live in the dimension they live in. However, metaphysically we may not know exactly how the lower metaphysical dimensions live unless we have direct experience of them. It seems likely that the metaphysical second dimension is very different from the conceptual second dimension. It seems likely to me that the lower dimensions have proportionately greater knowledge of the higher dimensions than do the higher dimensions of the even higher (we call this when 'God cheats’). After all, the lower dimensions may be more fundamental, or more responsible for a larger number of later dimensions. Specifically, fhe 2nd is responsible for the third, but is otherwise no different from the third, etc and so on down the line. In this way the dimensions are less and less responible, although really they are equally responsible relative to their complexity. Complexity is possible because if the dimensions were all the same, they would be equally fundamental." ---Nathan Coppedge
"There is no responsibility without getting what we want." ---Nathan Coppedge
"Sometimes responsible people don't know how responsible they are." ---Nathan Coppedge
"Measuring the worth of worth is futile." ---Nathan Coppedge
"The evolution of evolution. Perception must always have an unconscious military, or the laws of civilized nature favor pleasure, and everyone lives on a Luxury Platform. The evolution of the military is to not be in the military, because it is better defense to not be in the military if one is inexperienced, and the only way to gain experience is to take risks. Also, experience will never be absolute and the military takes big risks. In essence, the military is not really macho when evolution means that evolution has already evolved. Everyone is equal, there is no need for muscle, madmen can be powerful or good. All is useless that can be stripped away." ---Nathan Coppedge, on the razor of luxury and swords to plowshares and the evolution of warfare
"How to prove one perpetual motion machine without proving many? The puzzle-box of fame..." ---Nathan Coppedge
"We don't argue that bricks can't make a wall, so we shouldn't argue against exponential efficiency. 12 bricks is almost like a wall!" ---Nathan Coppedge, arguing for his device with 12 compound advantages
"If philosophy is more suited to paradise than science, then we will either have a lot of philosophy, or an alternative to paradise." ---Nathan Coppedge
"People often think technology is the paradigm, but they have yet to think paradigm can be a technology. In that way, I have innovated." ---Nathan Coppedge
"The world we live in is not so different from a scheduling system for ideas—that is what it is." ---Nathan Coppedge
"Some of what C.S. Peirce propogates is merely bad Booleanism or a hard-nosed view of skeptical semantics. It should be unnecessary to say that skeptical semantics is an unnecessary discipline, as skepticism and semantics are mutually redundant." ---Nathan Coppedge
"Specific locations should really pay for everything." ---Nathan Coppedge, wisdom of the new ancients
"Before knowledge it seems, people were building in stone trees. It may be truth is more organic." ---Nathan Coppedge, after reading The Birth of Tragedy
"There is some truth in this statement that Brian believed in gods and had sex, while I believed in sex and became a virginal god." ---Nathan Coppedge, after reading The Birth of Tragedy
"Physically, something can work mechanically, under a physico-metaphysical supposition... we know logic should have a mechanism under some definition... If there is no criterion of meaning, there will be no necessary circularity... However, if there is a criterion of meaning that is met, still... we can state conditionally that we know how something works. (We) could know because it doesn't matter, or because we're an expert, or because we have special knowledge even non-mechanical knowledge, or because we have successfully qualified our criteria in a certain way even before assessing them. We will now have to prove these claims... only the best machines and other functions survive... there are two major exceptions: 1. When someone is doing some intense thinking... for example, in mathematics, where everything is built on thought, and 2. When there is a practical reason, like a random reason, why something does not work. A problem arises when the definition itself is ambiguous, but if the physical or logical conditions of function can be agreed on, then conditionally there should be a way to avoid circularity. The problem at this point will be 1. How to adopt a successful definition qua physics, metaphysics, or logic, and 2. How to change or otherwise universalize the criterion without adopting further and further definitions. The most general problem from the very beginning is not having an actual physics, metaphysics, or logic, and I think this is the root of the problem with circularity. Thus, it is apodictic to say that the true logical criterion would have no problem with circularity. And this can be true even conditionally. And so, qua condition circularity must be impossible. A further problem is simply the denial of truth, which amounts to the drnial of relevance (practically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually). However, what is true is still true qua relevance if it is true, conditionally or otherwise. One technique I have used is to adopt systematic assumptions which create the universal logic, accept that the systematic assumptions are modifiable, apply the universal logic to certain cases in which the systemic premises hold, and leave the larger questions to the diapute about systems and similar entities. The systemic dispute may be valid, but it does not mean all validity is eliminated... To claim that anything is absolutely not useful / universal to anyone or in any way is an argument out of hand (a type of fallacy). Thus, the first condition of knowledge functionality is conditionality or (else) triviality." ---Nathan Coppedge, on circular reasoning
https://www.poemhunter.com/quotations/famous.asp?people=Nathan%20Coppedge
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome.