Flawlessism, a new religion (within the past year)

Base12 said:
I was just watching a discussion on that today...

Click to expand...
Thanks

Well that's it. We are limited to what our human animal senses of sight, hearing and so on can detect, and all our truly wonderful scientific instruments and telescopes and microscopes and colliders and so on are really just ingenious extensions of our own human senses.

We don't even know how much we do not know, imo
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
how does anyone know this?
Click to expand...
"(Q)uantity of entities" is the key. Not existing in reality is the underline for emphasis.

Infinity is either "all," or it is a vacuous concept - in terms of reality. Philosophically (including mathematics) infinity can be bent in many directions, even some that contradict the concept. But in terms of reality infinity doesn't exist in any finite sense we tend to ascribe to it.

It shouldn't be surprising...when was the last time you saw 3/5 of a child running around the playground? Mathematics is full of "imaginary" numbers that philosophically are extremely useful, but not found in nature.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
But in terms of reality infinity doesn't exist in any finite sense we tend to ascribe to it.
Click to expand...
It exists within the constraints of time and space and number?
 
Is eternity a state of time infinitely extended, or a state outside of time?
 
Consider...is time a constant? Is gravity a constant? Is the speed of light a constant?

Is eternity a state of time infinitely extended, or a state outside of time?
Click to expand...

Big Bang / Big Crunch, dark matter / dark energy, if entropy is the order of the day why are galaxies speeding up instead of slowing down?, what role do black holes play? Etc, etc, etc, there are too many unknown variables...even the presumptions I just placed may be called into question by the next generation...that is how little we actually "know."

What reading I've found says either the universe will reach an outer limit, I believe it is gravity will be the force that ultimately, aeons from now, result in all being pulled back to a singularity and immediately bursting into a new Big Bang.

Alternately some say the universe will keep expanding until no other galaxies will be visible as they will be so far apart from each other that even light won't reach, and as stars fizzle and die, black holes consume and galaxies go through their lives until each finally dies and the universe is then a far greater vastness of nothing.

Dunno. The timelines for each are so vast as to be meaningless against eternity. It will be what it will be.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
No... you would have infinity minus one.

Alternately one would have to be added from "nowhere" in order to retain infinity, so nothing was actually subtracted in order to stay at infinity.

I have this argument with mathematicians that want to add to infinity. If infinity already has all possible, there is nothing more to add...hence there is nothing available to add to balance the detraction of infinity minus one. So infinity minus one is *almost but not quite* infinity. But it is NOT still infinity.
Click to expand...
Well, a set can be infinite, but not exhaustive, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.
 
Echogem222 said:
At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling me. I mean, you should know if I'm right or wrong, yet you're not saying that at all, you're saying that I'm wrong as a subjective opinion, without evidence. My guess is that you didn't even bother to learn about Flawlessism to the degree you need to in order to have an educated opinion about it (based on what you've been saying: "You're not really convincing me that your 'philosophy' is worth a moment of my time" which implies that you don't think it's worth looking into). And you're telling me that I'm happy in my ignorance, because I'm not willing to learn new things??? Hypocrite much? Yes, I do strive to learn more every day, and I will at some point learn more about philosophy than I currently do. But based on what you've said, you'd be happier in ignorance, which is why you won't learn more.
+++
Actually, I do realize what kind of troll you are, you're a highbrow troll, and wasting my time.
Click to expand...
Thomas is not trolling. He is VERY knowledgeable.
I think what he is saying, too, is that if you are serious about presenting a new philosophy, you have to know enough about what's out there to be able to assert that it is new.
Philosophy doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nor does the development of any field of knowledge.
Valid new philosophies develop from and/or reinterpret older philosophies, and thereby add to a body of knowledge that has been growing for a very long time.
 
juantoo3 said:
.when was the last time you saw 3/5 of a child running around the playground?
Click to expand...
Semantically seems absurd, but imagine an individual without legs... then it might seem like a weird way of describing someone but suddenly comprehensible
juantoo3 said:
but not found in nature.
Click to expand...
3/5 is usually a measurement, sure, but if something in nature like a tree was broken, you might have 3/5 of it left.
 
juantoo3 said:
Can you clarify what it is you mean? (response tomorrow, g'nite!)
Click to expand...
If I understand number theory correctly, a set of numbers can be infinite but not exhaustive.
For example, I could indicate "all the integers which end in the digit 5" or something. And it would be infinite, as it would go on and on and on and on and on and on and on .... yet not exhaustive, as the set indicated most certainly does not contain ALL numbers.

For some reason I couldn't find a good link to back this up, but I can look tomorrow. I need to log off too. 😴
 
TheLightWithin said:
If I understand number theory correctly, a set of numbers can be infinite but not exhaustive.
For example, I could indicate "all the integers which end in the digit 5" or something. And it would be infinite, as it would go on and on and on and on and on and on and on .... yet not exhaustive, as the set indicated most certainly does not contain ALL numbers.

For some reason I couldn't find a good link to back this up, but I can look tomorrow. I need to log off too. 😴
Click to expand...
OK, but numbers by their very nature are symbolic, they are not natural. Symbols represent, they are not the thing unto themselves.

That's where a lot of folks get lost on a tangent. We are so ate up in our minds with symbols that we've forgotten that symbols are just that...symbols. Of themselves, symbols are meaningless. I can't eat a letter "A" or a number "3" or a "$" sign, they are NOT real.

Humanity has developed a symbolic system that helps us parse information, and that began in earnest during the Agricultural Revolution, +/- 10,000 bc, the end of the last Ice Age and beginning of walled cities as people started sticking to one spot to tend a crop. Grain is not people food, humans did not evolve to consume grain. (I've gone over this many times in past essays, before your time.)

Think to when you were a child, before you learned an alphabet or numbers. How did you think? How did you reason?

But I was just a child...OK, but it doesn't change the fact that in the absence of symbolic thought, our minds think in pictures. This is closely related to imagination, so people still do it and don't realize.

We are so focused on the menu, we forget to order and enjoy the meal. We "adults" are so consumed by symbolic thought, we forget that symbols are not real, they only point to reality (in a best case scenario).

Symbolically representing infinity will always be meaningless in reality. Infinity in reality is ALL, there is nothing to add, and nowhere to set a detraction aside. Symbolically all kinds of clever articulations can be done, but symbols are not and never were "real."
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
The "state of the world, independently from whether anyone perceive it"
Since we can only perceive objective reality through our subjective lens, how can you claim this to be true?

The Quantum Double-Slit Experiment is a great example of how individual consciousness and the objective universe are intertwined. One potential revelation of this experience is that “the observer creates their reality.”

"Reality is a controlled hallucination, our mind puts the information that we receive from outside in the frame of our inner knowledge to form a picture of reality." - Neuroscientist Anil Seth

"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
Click to expand...
Starting from the very basic knowledge that the world existed before I was born, and that I existed before my children were born, it is clear to me that there are facts that are not bound to individual perception. There's also enough evidence that there was something before humans, or any living beings that would exist and be able to create an individual subjective reality.

So, there's by far enough evidence that there is plenty of "objective reality" that exists or existed what we do not perceive as individuals, even in collective knowledge of mankind, just our knowledge of it becomes less sharp, diminishing until not knowing anything about it, with distance of time and space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top