Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:53:23 -0700

Joao Leao wrote:
>
> James N Rose wrote:
>
> > Joao,
> >
> > :-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
> > but, he was also unaware of the importance
> > that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
> > are resident in any information relation situation,
> > as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
> > and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
> > cited or citable.
>
> I still have no idea of what you are talking about!
> Real communication involvements may be very
> important, but we are not having one here...


Because there is no way you can leave your
mindset, see beyond it. You think it is
the ultimate. Se la vie.


> > The 'ideal' as posited - and presumptively relied
> > upon by many post facto - is so separated from
> > 'being' and the encounters through which both
> > being and knowing are instantiated, that it
> > would not be unreasonable to populate 'ideal'
> > with all sorts of non-possible existentials.
>
> Again, I don't know what you mean by "encounters
> through which both being and knowing are instantiated".
> You can populate all you want but don't blame it on Plato!
> He was rather economical on his encounters...

hmmmm. Well, -you- and other platonist are quote
happy populating it with what -you- are comfortable
with. Then shut the door and consider no more.
(Especially anomalies or discontiuities left unresolved)

> > You can't tie 'ideal' to the spectrum of alternative
> > but satisfactory exemplars, and also say there
> > are no requisite relational aspects of the
> > properties or qualia resident in the different
> > domains.
>
> Sorry. You again seem to be confuse the domain of
> your thoughs with the Platonic Realm. There are no
> qualia in Platonia so they need not share relational
> aspects with any other domains, as you insist...
> Forms are Universals not properties.

If there are no qualia but there are universals --
which cannot be identified except via qualia --
something is awry.

If the Ideal "need not share relational
aspects with any other domains"
then that right off the bat kills
any statements attempted between Ideal and Real.

Nice trick, Joao.
 
> > Otherwise, you state:
> >
> > "The Platonic World only contains true mathematical
> > statements, not all the variety that you seem to
> > believe it requires. In other words it contains
> > presummably less information than most textbooks
> > of mathematics which include unproved conjectures etc..."
> >
> > So the platonic world cannot/doesnot contain the
> > ideal called 'unproved/unprovable conjectures"?
>
> I am sure you will agree that those cannot be ideal
> in the platonic world or in any other, if you reflect
> for a second. In an ideal world we prove or refute
> our conjectures. The fact that we can't do that in our
> world should show you how corrupt it is...

strike 'conjectures'; substitute 'presumptions' (weakly founded)

Ahhhh such purety.;

No sir, this world is not a -corruption-, it is an
exploration of possibilities. Your own words betone
a straightjacket spiritualism that comes straight
out of western bibilical theology, not Greek
adventures in thought.

> > The Platonic World contains -less- information
> > than the instantiated world? Exactly how far
> > can you extend that argument?..to the point
> > that it contains -no- information of relevance?
>
> I don't think that is the case but it
> could be! Have you read Tegmark's paper on the
> "Theory of Everything as and Ensemble Theory"?

I debate from -my- years of logos. I am courteous
to allow all possibilities -- until they are
carried to a limit and proved, or, shown problematic.

> > It seems that the Platonic World, as intriguing
> > and frame-of-reference shifting as it may be --
> > getting people to perceive beyond the immediacy
> > of encounters and the presumptions of observation --
> > is as flighty and weak as the 'real world' it decries.
>
> Not quite! The flightiness is yours and mine. The
> Platonic World is One and the Same for Eternity!

Maybe so. I probably confuse your depictions as
accurate on Plato.

One point being .. there may be no 'eternity'.

Oooops, sorry, that's one of your hallowed
anchor principles. Not to be challenged.
Damn, I slipped again, phooey.
 
> > You hold to it because it infers an eternality that
> > is very appealing, an opiate to the fear of oblivion
> > and total absolute negation of meaning concurrent that
> > comes with complete non-existence (even as potentia).
>
> Or with complete Existence and absolute Potentia
> and the only certainty of meaning. You keep trying
> to escape into the Hegelian World instead.

hmmmm, there you go again, "meaning". You
keep talking about connected values and also
insist there are no connections to enact 'meaning'
concurrently. I'm not escaping anywhere in your
A=A=notA = nothing universe. It doesn't ... 'exist'
(reality, not pun, intended).

 
> > I place it on no such special pedestal. It is not
> > a holy ineffible. If it can't be correlated with
> > being, then there is empty value, use or meaning in
> > presumptively claiming there is - and yet - denying
> > processive ways of having such 'correlations'.
 
> Wow! You blew me here...

Don't know you, never met you, never touched you.
Must be another one of your fantasies.
 
> > I deduce that platonic notions are nice sophomoric
> > ramblings, some interesting relations are enunciated,
> > but in the long run there are more important realite's.
>
> I am sorry, I have to laugh (:-). I am talking about the
> first conception of an integrated system of philosophy
> of which we know of and you call it "nice sophomoric
> ramblings". I am sure Plato would be delighted...

WOW. Plato got it absolutely right first shot
out of the box. OK, all other philosophers can
pack up and find something else to do. Holy Grail
time again.

Godel, take it back to church. Black is white and
white is black.

I repeat: Plato did the best he could with a limited
set of memes and cognates. He did outrageously well,
but we stand on higher ground and are surpassing
him .. as is the nature of things (per Godel).

Just because he expressed ideas about an extreme case
of existentialism, doesn't mean he nailed it all.

> >
> > James
>
> -Joao

James
Received on Mon Jun 16 2003 - 16:54:19 PDT