atomism retroactively refuted by Guenon and Shankara

File: 21 KB, 346x350, Rene-guenon-1925.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

atomism retroactively refuted by Guenon and Shankara Anonymous Mon Oct 25 02:23:34 2021 No.19284763 [Reply] [Original]

If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,” a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area ; now the sum of lements devoid of area can never form an area ; if atoms fulfil their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies. To this well-known and more-over decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Shankaracharya in order to refute atomism 1 : two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole ; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissible ; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely: so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility, as we pointed out when explaining the sense in which heterodoxy is to be understood ; [...]

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 04:52:09 2021 No.19285164 bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 04:53:27 2021 No.19285167 File: 2.23 MB, 1258x1068, 1632819319991.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19284763 >Mason Guenon He if of the demonic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:05:42 2021 No.19285186 >>19285167 learn how to write first, serf

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:06:18 2021 No.19285187 >>19284763 Seems like a pretty good argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:18:40 2021 No.19285211 >it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area Explain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:22:36 2021 No.19285216 >>19285211 Nvm I think he's saying "if you're not made up of anything, then you're nothing"

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:23:40 2021 No.19285218 >>19285211 Everything material has parts necessarily. If it has no parts it cannot take up space.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:25:57 2021 No.19285225

>>19284763
The same objections lie against the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms. For on that doctrine one atom when combining with another must, as it is not made up of parts, enter into the combination with its whole extent, and as thus no increase of bulk takes place we do not get beyond the first atom If, on the other hand, you maintain that the atom enters into the combination with a part only, you offend against the assumption of the atoms having no parts.

Brahma-sûtras, 2e Adhyâya, 1er Pâda, sûtra 29

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:32:14 2021 No.19285237 Intellect is immaterial and is not made of separable parts. It exists in a unity. Thus materialism is immediately refuted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:42:47 2021 No.19285262 >>19285237 the infinite

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 05:45:10 2021 No.19285268

>>19285237
How do you define intellect though? Are you referring more to consciousness itself?
What about your faculty for logic? Surely, this is a part of intellect? If I remove someone's prefrontal cortex, their logic faculty would be severely reduced and have reduced intellect. Like a computer part being removed from a machine. How is this not material?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 06:21:09 2021 No.19285356 >>19284763 PBUH

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 06:23:01 2021 No.19285363 >>19284763 What's the Guenonian view on reality?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 06:46:28 2021 No.19285447

>>19285262
It is perfect in its knowledge only in cooperation with God. Otherwise it can be atheistic and materialistic, as we see in modern society.
>>19285268
The nous created by God which is the image of God in a human. Consciousnesses/subconsciousness dichotomy is not natural so I don't think it is part of intellect.
The body is not a different entity but part of the same human nature a person embodies. It is natural for the body and soul to be indivisible and operate in perfect unity. So naturally a damage to the body would make it hard/impossible for the soul to operate it visibly in the material world. This does not mean that the material brain is identical to the immaterial faculty which operates it. You still retain your personhood even when the brain is broken or damaged in some way and can even have experience of God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 06:50:48 2021 No.19285459 Woah...that's like...really deep man! I'm so glad we had Guenon here to make this sage refutation of atomism!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 06:51:55 2021 No.19285462 >>19285211 If an atom has an area then it has distinct parts, ie that area can be subdivided.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:00:42 2021 No.19285484 >>19284763 Wow after hundreds of years Guénon employs the same argument greeks, romans, christians and post-descartes philosophers did against atomism. Brilliant.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:01:02 2021 No.19285485
File: 206 KB, 602x613, ob_72703af60bf8f49b3eaa52fec4748356_ren-gu-non-111-2b6aa4c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19284763
>The author seems to know—for instance—not only that Guénon occasionally smoked opium before he was 26, but also that Albert Puyou (Matgioi), the Count of Pouvourville had taught him. He seems to have cast-iron proof of it: Matgioi has written a book on opium (pp. 58, 283). Mark Sedgwick also wonders—in the manner of a ‘good,’ modern historian—whether Guénon would have moved to Egypt had it not been for his comforting, new lover, Mary (Dina) Shillito (p. 74). Despite the fact that in Cairo many Muslims took Guénon to be a saint (or even more than that), it turns out that during ramadam he did not refrain from “smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee,” and he did not go on a pilgrimage to Mecca (pp. 75–76).
holy based

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:01:52 2021 No.19285490

>>19284763
Guenon was a dumbass and it makes me mad to see him called a mathematician. This is just more infinitesimal stupidity that shows up in The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus. He is denying that space is made of points and assuming that it is only coherent if it is discrete. It's like asking what is the real number next to another real number and when you're told there isn't one denying that the real numbers exist. People who take his shit seriously are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:03:59 2021 No.19285499 >>19285490 seethe cope dilate

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:04:02 2021 No.19285500 >>19285490 >i-it's just dumb, ok! Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:05:35 2021 No.19285503 So basically he is saying atoms should also be void, but how come Democritus positioned atoms move through the void? It can't mean empty area moving in the void for the greeks, so what is it

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:08:14 2021 No.19285509

>>19285500
I gave the argument. Atoms are point particles without volume that exert a force in a field around themselves. There isn't an atom that is next to another atom since there is always another point between two points and atoms don't touch. This shit is basic

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:12:48 2021 No.19285526 >>19285509 >Atoms are point particles without volume that exert a force in a field around themselves. That's not an argument, it's a statement that was just refuted by Guenon in the OP. Arguments have to contain rationale, not mere assertions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:15:13 2021 No.19285535 >>19285509 >around themselves. Around what? They have no volume, as you just admitted.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:18:13 2021 No.19285545

>>19285526
It's a statement that is backed by experimental proof. Guenon stating that elements without area cannot sum to form an area is the assertion that is outright wrong and shows that he wouldn't even have been able to pass a freshman calculus class much less a class on measure theory. The number line is made of points as is three dimensional space. A point has a zero measure and yet a set of points can have a non-zero measure. Guenon was an idiot

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:19:00 2021 No.19285546 >>19285545 >It's a statement that is backed by experimental proof Nope. As Guenon said in the OP, modern physicists no longer take atomism seriously since the discoveries in quantum mechanics experimentally "refuted" it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:19:18 2021 No.19285548 >>19285535 Around the point in space that they are at. You know what a point in space is right? Points have no volume

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:19:19 2021 No.19285549 Can someone explain this >>19285503 how would the greeks have thunk of void moving in the void it makes no sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:21:23 2021 No.19285557 >>19285546 What they took to be atoms turned out to have smaller parts. They don't know if the smaller parts have smaller parts or not. All of the constituent particles lack volume though and are point particles

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:24:40 2021 No.19285567

>>19285548
>Around the point in space that they are at
Points in space do not actually exist, which is part of his argument.
>>19285557
>What they took to be atoms turned out to have smaller parts.
You're finally starting to get Guenon's point. What you don't get yet is that finite matter is infinitely divisible, it has no singular atomic point. This is Guenon's actual positive argument with respect to his refutation of atomism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:24:53 2021 No.19285569 >>19285545 >backed by experimental proof stopped reading right there

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:28:52 2021 No.19285585

>>19285567
>Points in space do not actually exist, which is part of his argument.
As I said several times and called him an idiot for it. Denying that points exist leads directly to denying that the real numbers exist. Guenon was a mathematical retard.
>What you don't get yet is that finite matter is infinitely divisible, it has no singular atomic point.
And then you directly contradict yourself in the next line. To deny that points exist is to say everything is discrete and discrete space is not infinitely divisible. Guenon and people that follow him are a joke.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:38:27 2021 No.19285622 >>19285585 >Guenon was a mathematical retard. >Guenon and people that follow him are a joke. all people who disagree with Guenon are like this, they are triggered by the truths which he exposed so they start insulting him. pathetic.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:39:27 2021 No.19285630

>>19285585
>Denying that points exist leads directly to denying that the real numbers exist.
Points cannot exist in space (and in this sense they "don't exist" - because they don't exist in the world we inhabit and interact with physically). They are an abstraction only relevant to abstractions. If a thing does not possess a volume, it is not "in space" and therefore cannot take part in anything related to space. If it is in space, then it possesses a volume and can be infinitely subdivided. It is thus no longer a point but a pseudo-point, ie a sphere.
>To deny that points exist is to say everything is discrete and discrete space is not infinitely divisible
Non-sequitur. It most certainly does not imply that.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:41:35 2021 No.19285638

>>19285622
They are triggered by his basic lack of understanding of math not even talking about pbysics. Guenon is the type of guy to hear about Achilles and the tortoise and then start claiming that no one can move. He would be arguing on message boards that 0.999... is not equal to 1

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:45:50 2021 No.19285656

>>19285630
>If a thing does not possess a volume, it is not "in space" and therefore cannot take part in anything related to space
This is an assertion that is not true. All the particles physicists talk about electrons, protons, neutrons or something more fundamental are all point particles with a field of effect.
>Non-sequitur. It most certainly does not imply that.
It most certainly is true. To deny that space is made of continuous points is to say it is made of discrete points. Unless you're denying that a location in space is a valid concept.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:50:39 2021 No.19285671 >>19285656 >because physicists say so so they are infallible? we can't doubt them?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 07:53:07 2021 No.19285687

>>19285671
They have experiments to back them up versus Guenon pulling shit out of his ass. Besides Guenon claims shit is incoherent logically that is a basic part of mathematics. His arguments in OP would apply to the real numbers and that has nothing to do with physics. His position goes against experimental evidence as well as being logically incoherent. His is a brainlet.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:21:35 2021 No.19285791

>>19285490
>>19285545
>the modern period must necessarily correspond with the development of certain possibilities that have lain within the potentiality of the present cycle ever since its origin, and however low the rank of these possibilities in the hierarchy of the whole, they like the others were bound to manifest themselves at their appointed time.
Idiots like you are necessary to manifest themselves for the end of the manvantara to happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:24:49 2021 No.19285801 >>19285791 I actually like this. Guenon thinks I'm some type of evil wizard with unnatural powers since I can pass a math class.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:25:56 2021 No.19285805

>>19285656
>This is an assertion that is not true.
It's obviously true. To not possess volume is equivalent to not existing in space, otherwise how are we justified in asserting anything exists at all? How do we perceive something rather than nothing (empty space) in space? If there is a "bounding force field" with a given diameter and volume as you said, then that diameter has to be related to something else with a given diameter; there is no "bounding diameter" of a point if it itself has no diameter, because in order for a sphere to encircle something, it must encircle that which is itself a sphere, because every point of the surface of the sphere necessarily has to be mapped with a unique three dimensional direction with respect to the point in order to encircle it, meaning the point must must be divisible with respect to those same three dimensions in order to relate to an object which is itself divisible through those dimensions (which are the basic conditioning factors of all space: "extension"). On the other hand, the "bounding diameter" itself can be said to be the atom, and that can be further subdivided because space is infinitely divisible and we arrive back at the original problem - the "point", despite being asserted by you to actually exist, does not affect anything in terms of physical calculations. Instead of thinking of points, we think of spherical force-fields which are treated as voluminous atoms which can be further and further subdivided, and the "point" is necessarily ignored for all practical purposes despite its alleged existence in space.
>To deny that space is made of continuous points
Space is not made of points, period. It's only through imprecise scientific and mathematical models that this is made to seem the case at all; and for this reason there is no mathematician or scientist on Earth who has ever or will ever practically demonstrate the existence of an actual volume-less point in the world. Continuous points are more accurate, from the modeler's perspective, than discrete points, but if you follow the trend of scientific accuracy from discrete to continuous (physicists once thought reality was likely discrete, then continuous, and so on), the highest truth scientists and natural philosophers will arrive at is that space is a continuum of continuums and does not contain any sort of point (the closest approximation of a volume-less point, in space, is an infinite continuum, yet bounded relative to other infinites, which would look like a perfect sphere, but which due to the limitation of the digits of pi can only exist perfectly when it possesses an infinite diameter, which it naturally never could in a finite universe): This would be the most accurate way to model the actual "substratum" of space.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:27:06 2021 No.19285808

>>19285687
Is always the scientists who know everything and us who can't doubt them. Guenon's understanding of maths is based on the metaphysical principles which are eternal, not discovered and will forever be so, whatever your ignorant oponion may be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:29:16 2021 No.19285817 >>19285805 >because in order for a sphere to encircle something, it must encircle that which is itself a spher Sorry, it doesn't have to encircle a sphere, but it does have to encircle something which is itself three dimensional.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:31:17 2021 No.19285826 >>19285801 >I know more about math than Wolfgang Smith https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341914904_The_End_of_Quantum_Reality_A_Conversation_with_Wolfgang_Smith

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:35:13 2021 No.19285837

>>19285805
This is basic basic shit and you really need to take a math class before letting Guenon rot your brain. Around middle school you should have been introduced to the Cartesian plane where a point's location is defined by two different numbers representing distances along the x and y axis. That point is not a sphere it's a point. It has no area or volume in three dimensions.
>Space is not made of points, period
Wow. So you don't believe in locations in space. I don't know what else to say to that. To follow Guenon you've thrown out geometry and common sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:37:39 2021 No.19285842 >>19285826 That's the intelligent design guy that is super into Aquinas. A crank

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:39:58 2021 No.19285849

>>19285808
>Is always the scientists who know everything and us who can't doubt them.
>Guenon's understanding of maths is based on the metaphysical principles which are eternal
You understand the irony of these two sentences following each other
>scientists are arrogant and claim to know everything absolutely
>Guenon knows everything absolutely

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:41:28 2021 No.19285856 >>19285837 >Cartesian refuted by Guenon

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:42:30 2021 No.19285861 >>19285546 quantum physics is the literal physics of subatomic particles

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:43:04 2021 No.19285865
File: 41 KB, 640x487, based perelman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19285837
>>19285805
>>Space is not made of points, period
This. It's not discrete, but has quality to itself. It is not defined purely by the collection of parts which are inside it.
This is extremely basic to understand. Math related to topology speaks about it too. No sane mathematician would agree that a collection of points is sufficient to define the notion of space.

>>19285842
>intelligent design
Based.
>Aquinas
Cringe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:45:10 2021 No.19285875 >>19285849 Guenon only wrote about the principles, he didn't invent them, you can also read others like him. Profane sience is an invention.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:45:54 2021 No.19285879

>>19285837
This is metaphysics, not mathematics. Cartesian planes do not actually exist, they are mathematical abstractions which are not real with respect to physical reality. I could just as easily tell you to take a lesson in relativity to understand just how absurd "absolute location" has been shown to be. Along with non-Euclidean geometry, space itself (your beloved continuum of "absolute points") is warped and malleable.
>That point is not a sphere it's a point.
Points, again, cannot exist in space. They are mathematical abstractions used for simplifying physical reality.
>Wow. So you don't believe in locations in space.
Not in an absolute sense, which is still in agreement with Einstein, really. There are relative, approximate locations but there is nothing absolute, and nor has anyone ever shown that to be the case. Everything in the universe is constantly in motion, nothing which becomes is ever the same, etc.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:49:07 2021 No.19285891

>>19285865
>Math related to topology speaks about it too. No sane mathematician would agree that a collection of points is sufficient to define the notion of space.
I guarantee Guenon would run screaming from any topology that wasn't a metric space. And metric spaces are made of points.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:54:02 2021 No.19285906

>>19285879
>This is metaphysics, not mathematics
The mathematics is backed up by physical experiments.
> I could just as easily tell you to take a lesson in relativity to understand just how absurd "absolute location" has been shown to be
I never said anything about absolute location I said location. If you don't believe in points you don't believe in any location be it a location in Newtonian absolute space or in relativistic space-time.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:58:38 2021 No.19285938

>>19285879
>his is metaphysics, not mathematics
Mathematics is a subset of metaphysics.
>>19285891
Guenon was pretty cringe in his acceptance of heterodox ideas, so I would not place much trust in his opinion. It is an absolute fact that in mathematics you can define the notion of space in a way which does not even require points, making them merely an optional external 'exoteric' structure to the space itself. Relegating 'space' to mean 'metric space' is not mathematical.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 08:59:22 2021 No.19285942

>>19284763
Sounds retarded.
Extended bodies generally consist of atoms bound together by interaction forces. The volume we assign to the extended body is the volume of the region the atoms are contained in (with some condition of regularity), be it a box or a sphere or something more complicated. This does not require the atoms themselves to have a volume.
That atoms are in fact divisible into electrons and the nucleus, and that the nucleus is divisible into protons and neutrons, and that the protons and neutrons are in some sense still further divisible does not matter here. His argument fails immediately.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:11:54 2021 No.19285985

>>19285861
Which turn out to not be particles as such
>>19285906
Mathematics cannot be backed up by experiments, experiments can be backed up by mathematics. Mathematics is only ever proven valid in its own domain, whether or not it is applicable to any physical phenomenon is just a matter of, again, circumstantial applicability and usefulness, not reality. The existence of discrete number was never proven by any physical experiment, the existence of non-discrete number was never proven by any physical experiment, etc., I shouldn't have to even tell you this.
>I never said anything about absolute location I said location.
Asserting the existence of points in space is asserting the existence of absolute location in space, because it asserts the existence of an indivisible unity in a domain that is otherwise entirely divisible and relative. I agree that location exists, just that it does not exist in terms of points, nor anything absolute (like points or calculable numbers). As such, location and space does not exist as either discrete nor continuous mathematical representations. Points are a useful abstraction for the human mind to navigate the world, however it's both scientifically and metaphysically erroneous to attribute actual reality to them.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:13:50 2021 No.19285994 [DELETED]

>>19285938
It is an absolute fact that in mathematics you can define the notion of space in a way which does not even require points, making them merely an optional external 'exoteric' structure to the space itself. Relegating 'space' to mean 'metric space' is not mathematical.
I don't know enough physics to say whether it uses topological spaces that aren't metric spaces. Space-time is still a metric space. Metric spaces are made of points. And again Guenon would almost certainly not call a topology without a metric space. The guy had barely a grade school knowledge of mathematics.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:19:48 2021 No.19286015

>>19285985
>Mathematics cannot be backed up by experiments, experiments can be backed up by mathematics. Mathematics is only ever proven valid in its own domain, whether or not it is applicable to any physical phenomenon is just a matter of, again, circumstantial applicability and usefulness, not reality.
I said that in response to this
>Cartesian planes do not actually exist, they are mathematical abstractions which are not real with respect to physical reality
Physical experiment definitely backs up the existence of the Cartesian plane in reality
>Asserting the existence of points in space is asserting the existence of absolute location in space
Again you assert something that is outright wrong. Points or locations in space-time are very much a thing in relativity. They just need an additional time coordinate along with the spatial ones from Newtonian space. And there is no absolute location in relativity

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:21:13 2021 No.19286023

>>19285994
>whether it uses topological spaces that aren't metric spaces.
All over the place, modern physics is characterized by heavy reliance on highly abstract mathematical structures particularized for the physicist's needs. Metric spaces also are not defined solely by points, but by a metric, which is qualitative and not pure raw data (such a thing doesn't exist anyways).
Guenon was correct in some of his refutations about incorrect usage of the word "infinity", but that's about it as far as I remember from reading his work. He can certainly rile up some pseudo intellectuals in the maths sphere but his ideas are refuted too.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:41:12 2021 No.19286092

>>19286015
>Physical experiment definitely backs up the existence of the Cartesian plane in reality
No, I'm afraid that's not how maths works.
>Again you assert something that is outright wrong
>And there is no absolute location in relativity
You've admitted that I was correct. I never stated that relativity did not reference points, just that it acknowledged that all points were mere convention, and not in any sense real or absolute. Almost all mathematical models still rely on abstract points for calculating certain values, it's just how models and the human need to quantify things for practical purposes work: the fact is that all values and points are imputed by the human mind and do not actually exist. The fact that relativity goes so far as to completely deny any validity to absolute spatial points (as all "points"="atoms" become intertwined with time, thereby eliminating any fundamental and absolute spatial atom) is the only thing I wanted to highlight with respect to it. Relativity, along with all scientific theory, is still necessarily imperfect and prone to future corrections, so I would put no weight in it as far as actual truth goes, and the same applies to all scientific knowledge no matter how absolute it tries to make itself appear.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:43:30 2021 No.19286098

>>19286023
I deleted the original post because I messed up the quote and it made it confusing. You responded before I redid it.

>Metric spaces also are not defined solely by points, but by a metric, which is qualitative and not pure raw data (such a thing doesn't exist anyways).
Metric spaces are made of points. The part about qualitative and not pure raw data sounds like Guenon crap and makes me doubt that you know what you're talking about.
>Guenon was correct in some of his refutations about incorrect usage of the word "infinity"
This confirms my doubts. Guenon's problem with the usage of the word "infinity" was that he didn't like it and wanted people to use his vague ass definition. Infinite means not finite full stop. Any set that is not finite is infinite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:44:51 2021 No.19286105 >>19284763 Another day Another guenon shill thread

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:48:05 2021 No.19286120

>>19286092
>No, I'm afraid that's not how maths works.
Defining something mathematically doesn't mean it physically exists. You have to have physical experiments for that. Which in the case of the Cartesian plane have been done.
>You've admitted that I was correct.
No I didn't. I said denying points exist means that you deny locations in physical space exist. You jumped to absolute space and said this
>Asserting the existence of points in space is asserting the existence of absolute location in space
which is outright wrong. Relativity talks about points in space and also doesn't have absolute location

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:52:13 2021 No.19286137 >>19286105 Another day Another seething hylic It shall be like this till the end of the kali yuga.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 09:59:56 2021 No.19286167

>>19286120
>Defining something mathematically doesn't mean it physically exists.
Correct.
>Which in the case of the Cartesian plane have been done.
Incorrect.
>Relativity talks about points in space and also doesn't have absolute location
Correct, which is what I just said. What you neglected to mention is my point about space being conditioned with respect to time (meaning spatial points/atoms cannot even theoretically exist in the strict and absolute sense; they have a non-spatial component which means atomism in the strict sense is ipso facto refuted by Einstein).
> I said denying points exist means that you deny locations in physical space exist.
Which I've already stated is a non-sequitur, and you still have not been able to show me how one follows from the other.

"Points don't exist as absolute, volume-less entities in three dimensional space" != "approximate location does not exist as a useful abstraction, which cannot be reduced to any single point (because single, volume-less points cannot exist in three dimensional space)"

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:04:14 2021 No.19286192 >>19285842 >That's the intelligent design guy that is super into Aquinas. A crank Why? >inb4 seething Can you give actual reasons? Otherwise you are just coping.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:10:27 2021 No.19286220

>>19286167
WTF is a point in space if not location in space?
>Correct, which is what I just said.
And how you contradicted yourself. You also said this
>Asserting the existence of points in space is asserting the existence of absolute location in space
This is straight up not the case in relativity. Space-time is a mathematical space with four dimensions. You're wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:12:49 2021 No.19286233 >>19286192 The guy put Wolfgang Smith up as an authority. Pointing out that he is a crank with non-mainstream ideas refutes his claim to authority. He didn't give any arguments besides that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:14:58 2021 No.19286245 File: 114 KB, 220x220, soy-soyboy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19286233 >non-mainstream ideas >>19286233

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:17:03 2021 No.19286254 >>19286245 The original post >>19285826 I know that Wolfgang Smith is a crank. If you argue from authority expect to be refuted from authority. Mainstream science calls Smith a crank

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:28:36 2021 No.19286302 File: 385 KB, 722x1199, 6be.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19286254 >Mainstream science

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:31:34 2021 No.19286318 >>19286302 >loves Guenon >hates science >uses computer

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:37:18 2021 No.19286343

>>19286254
>I know that Wolfgang Smith is a crank
>f you argue from authority expect to be refuted from authority
You are not an authority on anything who do you think you are lol.
Your so called mainstream science changes every year and only moves from tombstone to tombstone like what happened to Avogadro and his idea on the nature of gases.
I expect God to give you a really humiliating experience in the coming days to teach you a lesson.
>Mainstream science calls Smith a crank
Please point me to this critique then instead of throwing words around and trashing respectable figures like a dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:42:48 2021 No.19286368 >>19286318 ride the tiger

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:42:51 2021 No.19286369

>>19286343
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in physical science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations, although some recent accounts of quantum phenomena make use of teleology. Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective.

Intelligent design is a crank position according to modern science and Aquinas was never scientific at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:43:52 2021 No.19286375 >>19286343 >I expect God to give you a really humiliating experience in the coming days to teach you a lesson. Deranged schizo

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:51:53 2021 No.19286414 File: 100 KB, 680x847, 1633492435966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19286369 >Intelligent design is a crank position according to modern science

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:53:08 2021 No.19286422 >>19286369 >are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. So is evolutionism, it is not a science but a philosophical interpretation of materialistic discoveries.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:55:19 2021 No.19286434 >>19286422 >asks for evidence that intelligent design has no authority in modern science >gets it and cries

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:57:17 2021 No.19286445 >>19286434 I'm not even the original poster. Also the "U.S. National Academy of Sciences" is not an authority on truth lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 10:59:19 2021 No.19286454 >>19286445 >I'm not even the original poster The original post claiming Wolfgang Smith as an authority >>19285826. If the U.S. National Academy of Sciences isn't an authority crank ass Smith sure as hell isn't

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:08:35 2021 No.19286494
File: 118 KB, 1280x720, 00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286454
On math. Not on science. There are not the same.
One speaks about truth, other speaks about experiment.
I would say Wolfgang Smith is more redpilled on math than the U.S national whatever.
I hope he does repent from the traditionalism guenonian garbage though.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:09:41 2021 No.19286502

>>19286434
I am the original poster. I didn't ask you to get me a quote from whatever organization stating what can be considered "science" and what is not. You are moron who doesn't even know what he's talking about and has 0 reading comprehension.
If don't have any formal critique of Woflgang Smith and the ideas he presents in his book The Quantum Enigma (utter refutation of atomism) then please fuck off back to what every shithole website you came from.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:11:46 2021 No.19286511 >>19286494 I've never seen any of his legitimate math work I just know about his kooky shit. The original post is talking about some woowoo movie he did on par with What the Bleep Do We Know!?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:12:47 2021 No.19286517 >>19286502 You haven't given any of his ideas just claimed him as an authority when he is clearly a crank.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:12:53 2021 No.19286518 >>19286494 Anon. He's devout Catholic. You are the ones who need to repent from the plague that is ((orthodoxy)).

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:14:25 2021 No.19286524

>>19286511
In this wide-ranging interview, conducted on the occasion of the release of a new film addressing the implications of his thought, the physicist and metaphysician Wolfgang Smith speaks about the need to integrate science with reality in a way that affirms the lived experience of humanity, and preserves the archetypal and qualitative dimensions that give it meaning. He is critical of scientific fundamentalism and its overreaching tendencies, of the false premises of Darwinian evolutionism and of the limitations of Einsteinian physics and quantum reality. Physics, on its own terms, he claims, must affirm, on pain of absurdity, the metaphysical dimension of reality and of the corporeal existence that it informs.

The paper you linked. The abstract is filled with crank shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:14:49 2021 No.19286526 >>19286517 What's this thread about again? You seem to be either retarded or suffer from amnesia.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:18:03 2021 No.19286541

>>19286526
Original post that started this shit show >>19285826. Jackass talks about Wolfgang Smith out of nowhere and attempts to use his authority to show I'm wrong. I point out that Smith is a crank. Other jackasses try to jump and some how claim Smith's position is mainstream. It's not and he is a crank.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:19:30 2021 No.19286553

>>19286518
Roman catholicism is just a heretical offshoot of Orthodoxy. Only in it do you see "priests" actively practicing buddhism and it being encouraged and not anathematized immediately. Any such "buddhist yogist priest" in Orthodoxy would be deposed very quickly. RC is not the original faith given once and for all to the apostles.
>repent from the plague that is ((orthodoxy))
What is there to repent of? In modern RC view schism is not a damning sin and Orthodoxy is just "another variant" of the faith which you can practice as evidenced by the existence of uniates.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:21:45 2021 No.19286563
File: 1.15 MB, 1045x1017, platinatruck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286518
>He's devout Catholic.
And a perennialist (believes you can be saved in other religions). Although I guess nowadays this is not seen as a sin because of demonic deception. All of such pseudo-Christian views have been refuted by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:23:06 2021 No.19286568 File: 193 KB, 1034x1264, 1573348884215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19286524 >is critical of scientific fundamentalism and its overreaching tendencies >the false premises of Darwinian evolutionism

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:24:32 2021 No.19286576 >>19286541 I am sorry you were outed as a pseud by a bait poster, please proceed further and use your nearest dilator. You still can't refute his refutation of atomism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:24:40 2021 No.19286577 >>19286563 >tfw riding a comfy truck in the middle of nowhere while worshiping Christ, unbothered by modernity How do I do this, bros?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:26:28 2021 No.19286583 >>19286576 Whose refutation? I already said a fuck ton about OP and Guenon. The Wolfgang Smith guy just claimed him as authority and didn't give any refutations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:27:01 2021 No.19286588 >>19285167 This.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:34:54 2021 No.19286615

>>19284763
The contentious part is his assertion that being spatially determinate necessarily implies divisibility.
Something can conceivably be indivisible in distinct parts and yet occupy space. We could say it has a top half and a bottom half, or a left half and a right half, yet this would not obviously mean that it is divisible into those parts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:37:27 2021 No.19286621 >>19286615 The contentious part is saying point particles can't exist. Electrons, protons, neutrons and whatever else have no volume.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:38:13 2021 No.19286628
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 95064E27-AE0C-4F0E-94C3-CEDA77EE766C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19285837
>common sense.
Common sense was retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh), like so many other foolish notions

>We have said that pragmatism represents the final outcome of all the modern philosophy and marks the lowest stage in its decline; but outside the philosophical field there also exists, and has already existed for a long time, a diffused and unsystematized pragmatism which is to philosophical pragmatism what practical materialism is to philosophical materialism, and which merges into what people generally call “common sense.” This almost instinctive utilitarianism is inseparable, moreover, from the materialistic tendency: common sense consists in not venturing beyond the terrestrial horizon, as well as in not paying attention to anything devoid of an immediate practical interest; it is “common sense,” above all, that regards the world of the senses as alone being real and admits of no knowledge beyond what proceeds from the senses; and even this limited degree of knowledge is of value in its eyes only in so far as it allows of satisfying material needs and also sometimes because it feeds a certain kind of sentimentalism, since sentiment, as must be frankly admitted at the risk of shocking contemporary “moralism,” really is very closely related to matter. No room is left in all this for intelligence, except in so far as it may consent to be put to the service of practical ends, acting as a mere instrument subordinated to the requirements of the lowest or corporeal portion of the human individual, “a tool for making tools,” to quote a significant expression of Bergson’s: “pragmatism” in all its forms amounts to a complete indifference to truth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:38:42 2021 No.19286632 >>19286621 >Electrons, protons, neutrons and whatever else have no volume. [Proof needed.]

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:43:26 2021 No.19286648 >>19286563 Posting a man who blasphemes against catholic saints by calling them "demonic". He has no piety or grace in his look and himself looks demonic. No wonder he influenced someone like you.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 11:54:46 2021 No.19286687

>>19286553
You think anything outside your orthodoxy is demonic and only your little cozy church is the true one. Which isn't the case since Christ himself founded the Catholic Church so that would make you the one who is deceived by demons to reject Christ's true body.
Also I not a slav or eastern european to embrace orthodox christianity on top of it being wrong in the first place.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:01:45 2021 No.19286721
File: 2.64 MB, 2014x2541, Painting_of_Teresa_of_Avila_by_Horace_Le_Blanc_(1621).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286648
Catholic "saints" went into delusion because they departed from the spiritual tradition of the early church by over-reliance on sensory ecstasy during prayer and invention of completely foreign devotions. Demons do this all the time even to Orthodox monks, the only difference is that they aren'y by default in a state of delusion since they did not break away from the Body of Christ and are operating in a tradition not built expressly on spiritually confused teachings.

>He has no piety or grace in his look and himself looks demonic
Only a demon would prompt you to really say that Fr. Seraphim has no grace in his look and this kind of picture (extremely prominent in Roman Catholicism) is anything but satanic delusion. These things didn't exist in the West as a type of norm before they schismed.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:09:11 2021 No.19286752

>>19286687
>You think anything outside your orthodoxy is demonic
Because there is no salvation outside of Christ's Body.
>himself founded the Catholic Church
The filioquist creed and the fabricated justifications Rome used to schism are completely laughable. Even modern roman catholics accept this.
>Also I not a slav or eastern european
Neither was Fr. Seraphim Rose?
>op of it being wrong in the first place.
Why is it wrong? We follow the theology of the early fathers and ecumenical councils, you don't. You invent new things constantly, like immaculate conception. You have a false view of anthropology contradicting all early fathers where the Blessed Virgin can be free of original sin and somehow still involuntarily suffer and experience results of the fall. Also there was infant communion in the early church but you decided to ban it because of absurd rationalistic reasons. You are literally separating infants from having Christ's eternal life in them. It is an evil and demonic practice where somehow rationality is a prerequisite for communing with Christ, who Himself said to allow the children to Him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:11:39 2021 No.19286763 >>19286023 >but his ideas are refuted too. never!

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:16:32 2021 No.19286782
File: 51 KB, 550x381, 73619.p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286648
>himself looks demonic
Elaborate. What is demonic in his look?
Looks like a normal peaceful monk to me. How you can deduce he is demonic from mere looks is very interesting since I doubt you have read his works.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:17:06 2021 No.19286787

>>19286752
>Because there is no salvation outside of Christ's Body.
aka Catholic Chruch, you also blaspheme against the holy spirit which is an unforgivable sin so unless you repent you will be doomed to hell.
>The filioquist creed and the fabricated justifications Rome used to schism are completely laughable. Even modern roman catholics accept this.
Cope.
>Neither was Fr. Seraphim Rose?
He should have fucked off to russia or greece where he belonged.
>Why is it wrong? We follow the theology of the early fathers and ecumenical councils, you don't. You invent new things constantly, like immaculate conception. You have a false view of anthropology contradicting all early fathers where the Blessed Virgin can be free of original sin and somehow still involuntarily suffer and experience results of the fall. Also there was infant communion in the early church but you decided to ban it because of absurd rationalistic reasons. You are literally separating infants from having Christ's eternal life in them. It is an evil and demonic practice where somehow rationality is a prerequisite for communing with Christ, who Himself said to allow the children to Him.
Cope again demon. You will never have salvation outside of the true Church that is the Catholic Church.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:17:59 2021 No.19286791
File: 64 KB, 400x515, 1588384394196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286787
>>Because there is no salvation outside of Christ's Body.
>aka Catholic Chruch, you also blaspheme against the holy spirit which is an unforgivable sin so unless you repent you will be doomed to hell.
>>The filioquist creed and the fabricated justifications Rome used to schism are completely laughable. Even modern roman catholics accept this.
>Cope.
>>Neither was Fr. Seraphim Rose?
>He should have fucked off to russia or greece where he belonged.
>>Why is it wrong? We follow the theology of the early fathers and ecumenical councils, you don't. You invent new things constantly, like immaculate conception. You have a false view of anthropology contradicting all early fathers where the Blessed Virgin can be free of original sin and somehow still involuntarily suffer and experience results of the fall. Also there was infant communion in the early church but you decided to ban it because of absurd rationalistic reasons. You are literally separating infants from having Christ's eternal life in them. It is an evil and demonic practice where somehow rationality is a prerequisite for communing with Christ, who Himself said to allow the children to Him.
>Cope again demon. You will never have salvation outside of the true Church that is the Catholic Church.
Okay, anon. I pray that you repent.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:19:36 2021 No.19286798

>>19286721
>Catholic "saints" went into delusion because they departed from the spiritual tradition of the early church by over-reliance on sensory ecstasy during prayer and invention of completely foreign devotions
>keeps posting "aesthetic" icons in ever posts
You and your so called Seraphim Rose are nothing compared to the genuine saints of the Catholic Church. No one following your heresy could ever reach a spiritual development near that of Mother Teresa or any other saint of our Church.
>Only a demon would prompt you to really say that Fr. Seraphim has no grace in his look and this kind of picture (extremely prominent in Roman Catholicism)
Because it's true. I can see the demon in his eyes and if I saw your face I would say the same because you follow him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:20:54 2021 No.19286804 >>19286791 Ok anon I pray that Russia would be invaded by NATO to spread the true faith and save whoever else can be saved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:26:41 2021 No.19286825 >>19286721 >over-reliance on sensory ecstasy >has countless icons Ironic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:32:05 2021 No.19286843 >>19285545 >experimental proof Retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:37:28 2021 No.19286866

>>19286825
Icons are not ecstatic images, they do not depict ecstasy and are made to give the eyes something holy to look at instead of imagining something which is not there like the RCs do in many of their devotions. Also icons were dogmatized in the seventh ecumenical council.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:46:28 2021 No.19286897 >>19286866 You do what you condemn and praise what you don't. Icons are demonic tools to lead you astray from God and you literally believe that spirits inhabit these icons! Yeah totally not demonic at all.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 12:59:52 2021 No.19286946

>>19285985
>Asserting the existence of points in space is asserting the existence of absolute location of space
What if you bring time into this as well, wouldn't that render the point non-absolute, as at each moment it is thus changing with time, or does that still not address the fact that points in space, if existing at all, are indivisible unities contained within space, which is entirely divisible?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 13:00:02 2021 No.19286947
File: 226 KB, 800x557, Menologion_of_Basil_024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19286897
>Icons are demonic tools
Do you not accept the seventh ecumenical council? What faith even are you?

>Believing in one God, celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honorable images!

>Those who do not so hold: Let them be anathema!
>Those who do not thus think: Let them be driven far away from the Church.

>We follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church.
>We keep the laws of the Fathers.
>We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church.
>We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians.
>We salute the venerable images.
>We place under anathema those who do not do this.

>To those who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about as idols: Anathema!
>To those who do not salute the holy and venerable images: Anathema!
>To those who call the sacred images idols: Anathema!
>To those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods: Anathema!
>To those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God: Anathema!
>To those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols Anathema!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 18:06:32 2021 No.19288368 >>19285447 Why can't we move our consciousness point of view away from our bodies? Like, even 5 feet to the left. What's tying it down if not the material brain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 18:54:14 2021 No.19288623 >>19285484 this, still refuting atomism is one of the most boring and futile things a philosopher can do atomism as a philosophy is loooong dead

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 18:56:13 2021 No.19288637 >>19285499 this is how you know you defeated a guenonfag, when they resort to pol/ memes

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:01:28 2021 No.19288670

>>19285490
>>19285509
>>19285545
>>19285585
>>19285687
>>19285849

math anon thank you so much for those posts, they were incredible informatrional, i can't believe i aactually found actual information in a guenon thread
that's why i love to come to this threads, to see new ways that prove guenon wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:02:29 2021 No.19288677 >>19286628 >Common sense was retroactively refuted by Guenon you don't understand how dumb and dogmatic that sentence make you look

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:09:35 2021 No.19288715 >>19285526 >Arguments have to contain rationale, not mere assertions. tell that to shankara and his statement about self perceiving awarness

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:14:53 2021 No.19288745 >>19285567 >t finite matter is infinitely divisible, it has no singular atomic point wrong, that notion of space was already debunked by Max Planck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:27:17 2021 No.19288797 >>19285856 how?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:30:09 2021 No.19288815 >>19286220 guenonfag BTFO once again

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:30:54 2021 No.19288821

>>19288745
How does that debunk that point? That is a theoretical proposition which itself doesn't establish the final limit of smallness

>The Planck length is expected to be the shortest measurable distance, since any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would inevitably result in black hole production.
shortest measurable distance =/= shortest distance

just because you can't measure it doesn't mean that there isn't still indefinite further divisions to be made into immeasurably smaller sizes without end

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:38:38 2021 No.19288863 >>19285805 >To not possess volume is equivalent to not existing in space already debunked, see >>19288745

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:41:54 2021 No.19288878

>>19288821
>The Planck length is the length at which quantum zero oscillations of the gravitational field completely distort Euclidean geometry.
>he smaller the scale, the greater the deviations from the Euclidean geometry. Let us estimate the order of the wavelength of zero gravitational oscillations, at which the geometry becomes completely unlike the Euclidean geometry
>If the value {\displaystyle l}l is comparable to {\displaystyle \ell _{P}}\ell _{P}, then the maintenance of the former (usual) concept of space becomes more and more difficult and the influence of micro curvature becomes obvious"

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:44:15 2021 No.19288891

>>19286220
>WTF is a point in space if not location in space?
A point is an imaginary abstraction and not a location.

Locations in space have area, but a point cannot occupy an area in space because points have no extension which is the prerequisite of occupying or forming an area, so the point cannot form or occupy a location in space.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:47:25 2021 No.19288904

>>19288878
The claim that "the maintenance of the former (usual) concept of space becomes more and more difficult and the influence of micro curvature becomes obvious" doesn't itself prove that there are not smaller sub-lengths inside the Planck length, and smaller sub-lengths inside those, and so on indefinitely.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:50:40 2021 No.19288914

>>19285237
wrong, intellect need someting upon to which to exercise itself upon, every subject needs an object, and awarness need something to be aware of, there's no such thing as pure awarness, since it's a contradictionin terms, like saying you can eat the eating or walk in the walking

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:54:23 2021 No.19288932 >>19288904 yes it does, it proves that the linear euclidean model stop working, so this sentence doesn¿t make any sense >that there are not smaller sub-lengths inside the Planck length, and smaller sub-lengths inside those, and so on indefinitely.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:55:43 2021 No.19288939

>>19284763
>since it cannot have parts, must also be without area
Doesn't follow.
>sum of lements [sic] devoid of area can never form an area
Begs the question as the premise didn't follow.
[" " for the rest of that orbit of clauses]
>two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole
>devoid as they are of parts
Note specifically the weasel word, "part." We've tripped over our own definition of atom before even pausing for a first period:
>the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,”
To be indivisible means that a thing can't be divided. It tells you nothing (at all) about size. By our own definition, an atom could be the size of the sun so long as it can't be divided into smaller parts.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 19:58:02 2021 No.19288951

>>19288932
>yes it does, it proves that the linear euclidean model stop working
Linear euclidean model loses accuracy at a certain point =/= definitively proving a final limit of smallness

How do you know that there are not undiscovered Non-Euclidean models that can denote the smaller units inside a Planck length? You dont know that

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:04:18 2021 No.19288969

>>19288914
>there's no such thing as pure awarness, since it's a contradictionin terms, like saying you can eat the eating or walk in the walking
Awareness isn't invariably a verb, because it has an accepted usage as denoting a state of being or quality, so saying it's equivalent to "eat the eating" is just a contrived strawman, a trick of sophism

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:14:17 2021 No.19289007

>>19288951
>How do you know that there are not undiscovered Non-Euclidean models that can denote the smaller units inside a Planck length?
because those won't be non euclidean models, that's the whole point, if it can keep getting smaller then it's an euclidean model, since it has his basis on linearity

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:19:28 2021 No.19289028

>>19288969
>denoting a state of being or quality
still needs something to act upon, it doesn't have an existence of it's own, since you need a subject to be in said state of awarness, there's not such thing as a state of awarness on itself, the subject object dichotomy still remains

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:19:45 2021 No.19289031

>>19288969
Please don't reply to him, he isn't worth your time.
He thinks that awareness is dependent on external senses and has never been aware of his own awareness as typical of any of the millions of NPCs operating on some basic psychic software.
Worse, he never tried to close his eyes and shut down all the sense and still feel awareness and consciousnesses in his mind. His condition is pitiful but is sadly incurable. So please ignore him and let his own fire burn him to dust.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:22:58 2021 No.19289041 >>19289028 The state of awareness is the presupposition to anything and everything, you backbencher

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:24:14 2021 No.19289045

>>19289031
>orse, he never tried to close his eyes and shut down all the sense and still feel awareness and consciousnesses in his mind
you still need to close your eyes in order to be "aware of your mind" your pure awarness state is still conditionated by the material world, so it's not all that pure

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:27:46 2021 No.19289056
File: 26 KB, 341x306, 127586735157644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19288932
>yes it does, it proves that the linear euclidean model stop working, so this sentence doesn¿t make any sense
what kind of pseud shit are you on here, jesus fucking christ

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:30:59 2021 No.19289073

>>19289041
indeed, and that means is a logical concept, not a empirical thing
it's just the logical abstraction of singular moments of awarness that you conceptualize in your mind as a necessary condition of perception, which is fine, but then you fall into circular reasoning, and think is a real thing, outside of experience and it's has a substance of it's own
the thing you created in your mind as an abstraction, in order to conceptualize perception becomes something you try to use to conceptualize existence itself

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:32:08 2021 No.19289079 >>19289056 lol that graph don't disprove my point at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:33:44 2021 No.19289086 >>19289031 >He thinks that awareness is dependent on external senses how can you prove it's not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:37:47 2021 No.19289103 >>19289079 >lol that graph don't disprove my point at all it's not supposed to, but it proves my point quite well. which is that you don't have a point, you're a sokalian schizo throwing around a bunch of words you don't understand

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:38:10 2021 No.19289106 >>19289073 Is your existence something outside of your mind?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:42:21 2021 No.19289125 >>19289106 existence itself trascends my mind, so try to use categories of perception to encompass reality itsel fis foolish and will lead you to dogmatism and solipsism

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:43:35 2021 No.19289129 >>19289103 >it's not supposed to you don' ttell >which is that you don't have a point yeah you wish >you're a sokalian lol no

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:43:57 2021 No.19289136 >>19289125 No doubt it leads to something like solipsism, but how can you say it transcends your mind. What can possibly give you that idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:47:39 2021 No.19289152 >>19289136 i think that's the wrong question what can possibly give you the idea that reality itself doesn't trascends you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:48:38 2021 No.19289155 File: 96 KB, 707x530, the retroactive refutation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] pbuh

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:50:19 2021 No.19289161

>>19289028
>still needs something to act upon
Wrong, because a state of being isn't an 'act' or 'action', what you said would only be true if we were speaking about awareness in the sense of it being an action, which is only one of multiple accepted contexts of the word. I'm speaking about awareness as a state of being, not as a verb.
>it doesn't have an existence of it's own, since you need a subject to be in said state of awarness
There is no reason why awareness itself cannot be the subject that possesses the state of being of awareness as its very intrinsic nature that defines it and makes it what it is, indeed, constituting awareness, being constituted by awareness, is what makes awareness... awareness.
>>19289031
I enjoy refuting sophistry on occasion, even if he is beyond hope, at least lurkers who possess an inner light may derive some benefit from reading the arguments for both sides.
>>19289045
>you still need to close your eyes in order to be "aware of your mind"
Not necessarily, this is an example of the type of mistaken assumption an NPC would make. The truth is that awareness is known in every and all moments, but that the mutual confusion of it with something else means that the conceptualizing mind only grasps it mixed up with other things, and doesn't clearly realize It in Itself, not seeing the forest through the trees so to speak, or like not realizing the presence of space because of it being filled with an abundance of objects that seem to fill it, despite existing *in* it. Hence, awareness is known to itself in each and every moment, but the mind needs to do certain things for it to discern that always-present fact. That awareness is unaffected by the mind discerning it or not discerning it.
>>19289073
>it's just the logical abstraction of singular moments of awarness
Singular moments of awareness are impossible to demonstrate or prove the existence of, because awareness is still there existing in the gaps between whatever two moments you point to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:50:50 2021 No.19289164 >>19289056 >(cos(u)cos(v),sin(u)cos(v),sin(v)) this doesn't disprove the planck lenght tho

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:53:48 2021 No.19289178 >>19285490 based

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:55:17 2021 No.19289186

>>19289152
So I will take that as no reason. Not a feeling, not a revelation. No argument, no explanation. Existence can't be incomplete, there are no parts to hide and no places to hide them. The funny thing is I think I am preaching to the choir. Is that a screen your are reading right now?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 20:56:42 2021 No.19289196

>>19289164
>>(cos(u)cos(v),sin(u)cos(v),sin(v))
no
> disprove the planck lenght
jesus fucking christ, it's all imbeciles in the thread lol. why on earth would you think that has anything to do with "disproving the planck length" it's just a fun unit sphere in p=2/3

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:00:02 2021 No.19289208 >>19289155 B-B-B-Based.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:02:34 2021 No.19289220

>>19289161
>a state of being isn't an 'act' or 'action',
a state of being is"an act upon a being" it's in the word "state" of "being" you need a being and a state, which is an act, a being is walking, a being is aware
saying awarness is a state of being just proves my point

>There is no reason why awareness itself cannot be the subject that possesses the state of being of awareness
awarnes sitself is an act of perception, it can be aware of itself, only trought conceptual abstraction, but it's no longer awraness itslef but an abstraction, "the idea of awarness" which is not the same thing
>its very intrinsic nature that defines it and makes it what it is
the intrinsic nature of awarness is to be a bridge betwen the subject and and object
>>19289161
>being constituted by awareness, is what makes awareness... awareness.
that only wouldbe the case if awarnes swas self revelating, but you can't prove it without falling into circular reasoning
>>19289161
>The truth is that awareness is KNOW in every and all moments
exactly, know as a conceptualisation, not as a real thing
>Hence, awareness is known to itself in each and every moment
that necessity proves that pure awarness is a logical concept, not a substance, it doesn't exist on itself, it just a common denominator of experience, none of that proves that awraness can exist outside an object, let alone outside this reality or outside of time

>because awareness is still there existing in the gaps between whatever two moments you point to.
how? you can't just claim that without providing evidence or argumentation

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:03:35 2021 No.19289228 >>19289196 so you can't disprove the planck lenght then

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:04:22 2021 No.19289235

OFFICIAL THREAD THEME https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY
>OFFICIAL THREAD THEME https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY
OFFICIAL THREAD THEME https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY
>OFFICIAL THREAD THEME https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY
OFFICIAL THREAD THEME https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY
All hylics seething.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:08:55 2021 No.19289250

>>19289007
>if it can keep getting smaller then it's an euclidean model
Between two adjacent Plank points, is there any distance?
If there is distance then what is that distance?
If they have no distance between them they touch
If they touch they either touch partially or occupy the same position
If they touch partially, one portion remains untouched and smaller than the Planck point itself and the Planck isn't the final limit
If they occupy the same position it's meaningless to speak of distance between them
So, if to avoid this one says they don't touch and there is distance between them, but you still want to preserve Planck as the smallest limit, then the distance between them can only be a Planck point or a series of them
If the distance between the two Planck points is a third Planck point and not anything smaller, then the exact same problems detailed above arise with reference to the relation of the 1st to the 2nd point that bridges it to the 3rd and inserting more Planck points inside these expanding gaps to solve this creates a regress that is never solved.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:12:00 2021 No.19289267

>>19289228
when the fuck did i ever say i could, my first post in this thread was just to shit on that pseud spouting nonsense about euclidean geometry. the planck length isn't something to be proven or disproven it's just where two different systems of predictive equations intersect

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:14:25 2021 No.19289278 >>19289250 you're trying to use euclidean geometry on the planck lenght, when the whole point of the planck lenght is that you can't no longer use euclidean geometry

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:15:33 2021 No.19289284 >>19289267 >when the fuck did i ever say i could so guenon was proven wrong once again

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:20:02 2021 No.19289302 >>19289267 >my first post in this thread was just to shit on that pseud spouting nonsense about euclidean geometry but you didn't, you just posted a graph of a sphere

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:23:40 2021 No.19289320 >>19289235 When even the rap is classic

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:30:03 2021 No.19289348

>>19289220
>a state of being is "an act upon a being" it's in the word "state" of "being" you need a being and a state, which is an act, a being is walking, a being is aware
Wrong, because a state can be the quality or nature that something retains, i.e. fire is always in a state of combustion and so on. This is stated in the dictionary:

Essential Meaning of state
1: a way of living or EXISTING
2: the overall physical condition of something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

>saying awarness is a state of being just proves my point
you need to take more ESL classes before posting, the state of something existing, i.e. the way in which it exists, is not an act, as the dictionary explains clearly
>awarnes sitself is an act of perception,
This only seems to be true without exception if you don't know English well and you don't understand that awareness has accepted usage as denoting a quality or a way of existing.
>it can be aware of itself, only trought conceptual abstraction, but it's no longer awraness itslef but an abstraction, "the idea of awarness" which is not the same thing
Awareness never fails to continuously disclose its own presence to itself. When anything is apprehended, known or intuited in any way, the fact of that apprehension, knowing or intuition being disclosed as something that is occurring has already by its very presence disclosed that awareness is already present and disclosing its presence *as awareness* before the conceptual mind even has time to assign meaning to or grasp that particular thing being revealed. You don't have to intuit that you are aware, because the knowing of the particular thing was the revealing of two facts, the thing and your knowing of it *as that thing*, so, what you are supposed to be inferring (that you are aware) is already in fact revealed by the fact which is supposed to be the basis of that inference.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:32:11 2021 No.19289352 >>19289284 Yes you were proven wrong again and outed as a pseud. The next logical steps are to cope then seethe and finally dilate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:34:51 2021 No.19289358 >>19289348 >This only seems to be true without exception if you don't know English well He's a slavic Slave, aka the Dalits of Europe. What did you expect?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:38:42 2021 No.19289370

>>19289284
>so guenon was proven wrong once again
atomism has nothing to do with the planck length you fucking retards. also yes, he's obviously wrong, see any number of other refutals in this thread that don't invoke a stupidity about two equations with which none of the invokers are even vaguely familiar
>>19289302
>but you didn't, you just posted a graph of a sphere
but i did, i shit that sphere all over you or him or whoever it was and it felt good let me tell you

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:40:41 2021 No.19289379

>>19289220
>>its very intrinsic nature that defines it and makes it what it is
>the intrinsic nature of awarness is to be a bridge betwen the subject and and object
Wrong, it has the meaning of being a quality or nature that something possess, independent of any secondary consideration between that thing and anything else.

>the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge; consciousness:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/awareness

>>being constituted by awareness, is what makes awareness... awareness.
>that only wouldbe the case if awarnes swas self revelating, but you can't prove it without falling into circular reasoning
If awareness relied on another awareness to know it, that awareness can be self-revealing, or it can not be self-revealing, which then requires it to be known by a third awareness for us to know it, this continues on in a regress until you arrive at a self-revealing awareness.

>>The truth is that awareness is KNOW in every and all moments
>exactly, know as a conceptualisation, not as a real thing
Every time you know a conceptualization, the real and incontrovertible fact of being aware discloses itself in the very moment of knowing that conceptualization, as well as within the gaps between it an all other conceptualizations
>>because awareness is still there existing in the gaps between whatever two moments you point to.
>how? you can't just claim that without providing evidence or argumentation
Because you can't point to a gap without being aware of it, hence any attempt to demonstrate gaps ipso facto demonstrates that awareness is there as well, in reality there are no gaps in awareness, but I'm just showing how foolish your position is when taken to its conclusion

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:43:04 2021 No.19289392

>>19289278
So, you are unable to answer the question then? If you can't even explain how Planck units can have distance between them instead of all Planck units in existence coalescing in a single point then there isn't any point in seriously treating them as the smallest limit that makes up the building block of all distance.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:45:30 2021 No.19289403

>>19289348
>fire is always in a state of combustion
exactly, there's two components, fire and combustion, subject an dobject, awarness and someone who posses said awarness, awarness on itself can't exist, you just kee pproving my point
>usage as denoting a quality
indeed a quality, not something on itself
>>19289348
>Awareness never fails to continuously disclose its own presence to itself. When anything is apprehended, known or intuited in any way, the fact of that apprehension, knowing or intuition being disclosed as something that is occurring has already by its very presence disclosed that awareness is already present and disclosing its presence *as awareness* before the conceptual mind even has time to assign meaning to or grasp that particular thing being revealed. You don't have to intuit that you are aware, because the knowing of the particular thing was the revealing of two facts, the thing and your knowing of it *as that thing*, so, what you are supposed to be inferring (that you are aware) is already in fact revealed by the fact which is supposed to be the basis of that inference.
none of this proves that awarness doesn't need an object, you're just describing how youthink awarness works, without giving any prove or argument defending it
>>19289348
>Awareness never fails to continuously disclose its own presence to itself.
how? awarnes sis always being aware of something, only is aware of "itself" when a mental constructy is created, when singular moments of awarness creates the idea of a general awarness
>s occurring has already by its very presence disclosed that awareness is already present
how? you're not aware of awarness when you're aware of an object, you're aware of an object
>You don't have to intuit that you are aware, because the knowing of the particular thing was the revealing of two facts,
you're taking for granted the existence of pure awarness to justify that awraness is always revealing itself, when in reality you are nly ware of an object, the only moment "awarness reveals itself" is when you contemplate "the idea" of awarness
you're doing a circular reasoning, you use your own idea of self revealing awarnes sto justify that awarness is self revealing
ig you want to make a real argument, explain how awarness is self revealing without taking for granted that awarness is self revealing

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:46:53 2021 No.19289406 >>19289352 >The next logical steps are to cope then seethe and finally dilate. lol you're gonna use pol/ memes again? this is what shankara teach you? to be a slave of cringe memes that no one take seriously?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 21:54:00 2021 No.19289433

>>19289379
so a rock can be aware?

>If awareness relied on another awareness to know it
awarness relies on someone to use that awarness, awarness is part of a subject
>the real and incontrovertible fact of being aware discloses itself
it not disclose itself in the moment, just in a later reflection, awarness as an activity is always falling into an object, not onto itself, i'mnot saying awarness doesn't exist, i'm saying it needs an object to exist, it can exist by itself
if you want to dsiprovemy point, show me an instance in which awraness exist by tself
>>19289379
>, but I'm just showing how foolish your position is when taken to its conclusion
no just like shankara you're misunderstanding
my point compelty and arguing against a strawman, i'm not saying awarnes sdoesn't exist,m so you don't nee dto tell me that exist, what i'm telling you is that awarness can't exist by itself, is interdependent, it needs an subject to be a quality for and an object to be acted upon

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:02:11 2021 No.19289490 >>19289406 >muh /pol/ Cope seethe dilate and go back to /lgbt/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:02:27 2021 No.19289493 >>19289370 >atomism has nothing to do with the planck length you fucking retards planck lenght is the best way to explain why thinking about an infinite divisibility goes nowhere

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:03:28 2021 No.19289501 >>19289490 this is the guy who said no longe rfears death and lives in a state of permanent tranquility thanks to shankara, a guy who get's triggered by 4chan buzzwords

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:07:25 2021 No.19289516 >>19289493 lol no, no it isn't. not at all. in fact please never do it again because you just sound like an idiot when you do

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:13:47 2021 No.19289543

>>19289501
>this is the guy who said no longe rfears death and lives in a state of permanent tranquility thanks to shankara, a guy who get's triggered by 4chan buzzwords
I didn't ask you to write your autobiography in the third person this is not your personal blog. Anyways Cope and Seethe hard, I want to see you burning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:16:04 2021 No.19289555 >>19289501 >longe >rfears >get's Are you shaking or something buddy or is your sleepy time coming soon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:21:55 2021 No.19289582 >>19289516 study physics and then we'll talk

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:22:56 2021 No.19289585 >>19289543 >I didn't ask you to write your autobiography in the third person lol you're such a try hard

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:24:10 2021 No.19289590 >>19289582 you seem to keep missing my point completely, which is that you're an idiot who knows nothing about physics. why the fuck would i want to talk with you about something you don't know the first thing about?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:26:41 2021 No.19289602

>Atomism
>Planck
>((modern physics))
Refuted and utterly dismantled by Wolfgang Smith (pbuh).
>We need now to ask what is it that distinguishes the corporeal from the physical; and the first thing to note is that this, too, is a question physical science as such cannot pose, let alone answer. Physics has eyes only for the physical, period; and one might add that inestimable harm to civilization at large has resulted from the fact that this inherently obvious fact has as a rule been negated by the presiding elite. The almost universal tendency on the part of physicists to conflate the physical and the corporeal domains turns out thus to constitute a category error resulting from a failure to comprehend the modus operandi of physics in ontological terms.

What in truth distinguishes corporeal entities from the physical is the fact that they exist. This may of course come as a shock to the public at large inasmuch as the prevailing worldview affirms in effect the very opposite. In the name of science an uncanny deception has been imposed upon humanity, which—quite literally—stands the world on its head. Yet the fact remains that the physical, properly so called—so far from coinciding with the corporeal—constitutes in truth a sub-existential domain. And this should in fact come as no surprise if only one recalls that Heisenberg himself has situated the so-called elementary particles ontologically “just in the middle between possibility and reality,” and has pointed out that as such they are in fact “reminiscent of Aristotelian potentiae.”16 We need thus to ask the crucial question: what is it, then, that actualizes these potentiae? And as is so often the case when, at long last, the right question is posed, the answer stares us in the face! Quantum particles are “actualized” precisely in the act of measurement, and thus on the corporeal plane: in the state of a corporeal instrument, to be exact.

The key to the quantum enigma is thus to be found in Lord Kelvin’s conception of physics as “the science of measurement,” which is to say that the ultimate object of physics is neither the physical as such, much less the corporeal, but the transition, precisely, from the former to the latter in the act of measurement. A so-called quantum particle, thus, is not actually a particle—does not, properly speaking, exist!—until it interacts with a corporeal instrument of measurement or detection: “beneath” the corporeal plane all is potency, what Heisenberg refers to as “Aristotelian potentiae.” In the final count, one is forced to admit that the physical universe, properly so called, constitutes, properly speaking, a sub-existential domain, which in an unimaginably subtle yet absolutely precise sense underlies the corporeal world, and in fact determines its quantitative attributes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:27:52 2021 No.19289608 >>19289590 you keep saying that , but can't back any of that shit with an actual argument based on physics, so it's pretty obvious the only pseud here it's you

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:28:53 2021 No.19289612 >>19289602 >dismantled by Wolfgang Smith lol that hack can't debunk a middle school kid

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:30:34 2021 No.19289619 >>19289585 Be honest. How many times did you have to spell check this before posting?

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:30:58 2021 No.19289621

>>19289403
>exactly, there's two components, fire and combustion
Fire IS a type of combustion, they are not two separate things or components. Whenever there is fire, it's existing AS a type of combustion. Instead of proving your point, you've now shown that you lack an understanding of both basic English and basic chemistry. Sad!
>indeed a quality, not something on itself
Something is defined by and comprised by its essential quality (i.e. essential nature). Something is not different from the nature that constitutes it.
>none of this proves that awarness doesn't need an object, you're just describing how you think awarness works, without giving any prove or argument defending it
It shows that awareness is continually present and cannot be substantiated as relying on anything else for its disclosure, because in the disclosure of anything awareness has already been disclosed by the disclosure of that very thing. Awareness is both simultaneous with the disclosed object, and it preexists it as well which allows us to know and witness the change that happens when there is a transition of objects and new ones come into experience. The disclosure of awareness is the precondition of anything else being disclosed, and not vice-versa. When other things rely on our reality of uninterrupted awareness for their disclosure and that awareness doesn't rely on them, there isn't a reason to think awareness would fail to disclose itself in their absence (since we never empirically experience objects being a preconditioned of awareness) unless you assume materialism is true, but materialism is full of too many holes.
>>Awareness never fails to continuously disclose its own presence to itself.
>how?
This is shown by the fact that its impossible to demonstrate the absence of awareness and by the fact that you have infallible access to whatever state or function the mind is engaged in. You never had doubt that you are aware of your own thoughts, your access to them is immediate and infallible, even though those thoughts themselves may be fallible. This presence which has uninterruptable and infallible access to the status of the mind is the continually-disclosing presence of awareness.
>awarnes sis always being aware of something, only is aware of "itself" when a mental constructy is created, when singular moments of awarness creates the idea of a general awarness
That's wrong, because you can't be aware of anything like thoughts or sense-perceptions without that very fact revealing that you are endowed with the nature of being aware. This revealing of awareness as being present that is simultaneous with all known thoughts etc is the perpetually present disclosing of awareness to itself as presence.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:32:34 2021 No.19289629

>>19289403
>>19289403
>>s occurring has already by its very presence disclosed that awareness is already present
>how? you're not aware of awarness when you're aware of an object, you're aware of an object
Read your own words you wrote "you're aware of an object", that is, you are aware, and there is an object. That is, in the very awareness of an object, the disclosing of the fact of your awareness is there at the same time as your object, and the object cannot be known without this being disclosed, there isn't any way to be aware of any object without the fact of you being aware being also immediate and self-evident by virtue of knowing anything.

...

We are immediately aware of being conscious. As stated above: No one (not blinded by some philosophical dogma) would find the question of whether (s)he is certain that (s)he is not an unconscious automaton to not be utterly ridiculous: that my consciousness at this very moment is taking place is absolutely indubitable. And this indubitable evidence is not based on some inference; rather we immediately experience our own being-conscious. From what should I infer the taking place of my consciousness? It goes without saying that I do not infer from my behaviour I observe that I am obviously a conscious being (apart from the absurdity of this claim, this would hardly yield the mentioned indubitability). Perhaps one could hold that I infer from the objects of consciousness that I am conscious of them. Yet when I am, say, aware of a tree, no inferential path leads from the fact that over there stands a tree to the fact that I am conscious of it. I could only “infer” this from the fact that the tree is given to me – yet this is actually no longer an inference, since the givenness-to-me is my very consciousness of it, i.e. precisely what is supposed to be inferred. Thus, what tells me that I am conscious is not what I am conscious of, but rather nothing but my consciousness itself – consciousness involves its own revealedness.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:33:34 2021 No.19289634

>>19289403
>>19289629

So my consciousness is not something I posit on the basis of some other evidence, but something I directly experience – yet not in the way I experience perceptual objects where givenness and being do not coincide and where therefore doubts about the existence of the appearing object are possible (because it is always thinkable that the appearing of the object takes place without the appearing object existing): It cannot just appear to me that I am conscious, for this very appearing would itself be consciousness. Rather, in the case of consciousness, being and givenness fall into one: presence is its own presence, without any subject-object or givenness-given difference. Hence, we do not know of our consciousness through any of the usual “means of knowledge” (pramāṇas) such as inference or perception. There are no special cognitive acts by which my consciousness could become known to me because its presence is the medium or base of any cognition. As Śaṅkara says: “The self is not to be established by any means of right knowledge […]. It is what employs any means of knowledge like perception, etc. in order to establish what is not already known. […] [T]he self is the very basis of any employment of means of knowledge and is therefore established prior to them. Therefore it cannot be refuted. We can only refute what we [externally] encounter, not what is our own being, for it is the very being of him who refutes it”
-Wolfgang Fasching

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:33:58 2021 No.19289636 >>19289608 state your "argument" in terms of "physics" (lmfao) and i'll play, if not i'll just kep shitting on you in your own language because you're wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:34:23 2021 No.19289642 >>19289612 I am assuming you know more than a middle school kid (I am not even sure about that tbqh). Take a shot if you think you have anything to offer in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:34:55 2021 No.19289645 >>19289602 supremely based... I need to read his books ASAP

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:37:06 2021 No.19289656 >>19285490 Cringe and dimwit pilled.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:38:24 2021 No.19289662

>>19289433
>so a rock can be aware?
I never said that
>awarness relies on someone to use that awarness, awarness is part of a subject
It's impossible to demonstrate that awareness relies on anything.
>it not disclose itself in the moment,
Yes it does, because knowing anything discloses the fact of you being aware of it. You can't have knowledge of anything without being aware at that very moment of it. See >>19289629 >>19289634

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:39:46 2021 No.19289671 >>19289645 http://library.lol/main/95C97E1F133AF7FEBC42B88BC1D62F48 http://libgen.lc/ads.php?md5=95C97E1F133AF7FEBC42B88BC1D62F48 https://3lib.net/md5/95C97E1F133AF7FEBC42B88BC1D62F48

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:40:43 2021 No.19289674

>>19289493
>planck lenght is the best way to explain why thinking about an infinite divisibility goes nowhere
Until Plancktards can come up with a solution to the problem described here >>19289250 then maintaining that all distance is comprised by repeating Planck units as the smallest unit is laughably stupid

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:46:50 2021 No.19289696

>>19289645
He's really an amazing author. It's sad /sci/ doesn't appreciate him because 90% of them are midwit pseuds and /lit/ doesn't discuss him much because he's a scientific writer (although he wrote a lot on philosophy and christology).
I believe this is the e/lit/e board and we should be posting him more.

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:47:24 2021 No.19289700

>>19289674
seriously, retards. STOP TALKING ABOUT PLANCK LENGTHS
it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with atomism, it is simply refuted by the fact that his arguments contradict his own definition of what an atom is. you don't need """"""""planck lengths"""""""" bullshit to see this

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:48:47 2021 No.19289705

>>19289621
>Fire IS a type of combustion
no, fire is what happens when a combustible combust, but you're trying to do a play on words to not adress the real point, which is that awarness is interdependent and can't exist on itself, just like fire need a heat and a combustible
>Something is defined by and comprised by its essential quality
that's ony the case on a escentialist ontology, which have a lot of prblems, the most important of them it doesn't take into consideration the necessity of relationship between the parts, some philosphies don't even consider a escencial quality as something that can exist, tryng to use a controvertial school of tought as a fact is pure sophistry
>>19289621
>It shows that awareness is continually present and cannot be substantiated as relying on anything else for its disclosure,
no is not, you never showed how awarness isn't relying in other things, there's no disclosure of awarness that give us the idea of awarness as soemthing indepdenent of the world or the subject that is aware>>19289621
>The disclosure of awareness is the precondition of anything else being disclosed
again that'snot an argument, just a statement
>Awareness is both simultaneous with the disclosed object, and it preexists
you don't know if it preexist, sicne the only way to rpeceive it is by an idea constructed in your mind of pure awarness
>The disclosure of awareness is the precondition of anything else being disclosed, and not vice-versa
again, not an argument just a statement
>When other things rely on our reality of uninterrupted awareness for their disclosure and that awareness doesn't rely on them
another statement
>This is shown by the fact that its impossible to demonstrate the absence of awareness
you can show it's something that flux and death is a pretty good indicator that at least awarness changes in a dramatical way, so if awarness is not constant why it should be permanent?
>This presence which has uninterruptable and infallible access to the status of the mind is the continually-disclosing presence of awareness.
that's just not true, parapraxis and lapsus show us that we don't have an infallible access to the status of the mind, that access flux all the time
>without that very fact revealing that you are endowed with the nature of being aware
the fact that you can find common denominator in your life like awarness doesn0t prove hat awarness can trascend time or change
also you're not constantly aware, awarness changes all the time, you're confusing the idea of awarness with actual awarnes

Anonymous Mon Oct 25 22:54:43 2021 No.19289723

>>19289662
>I never said that
yes you do, you at least implied it here
>Wrong, it has the meaning of being a quality or nature that something possess
if a rock can't be aware then awarness isn't something posses, but something being with conciousness posses, which is completly different, since already oint out you need a subject and an object in order to awarness to function, so it's not just a quality somehting possses
>>19289662
>It's impossible to demonstrate that awareness relies on anything.
you don't need to prove it, it's self evident, since awarness is a quality of the mind, it's like asking to prove that walking le tyou go from one place to another, you can just walk, you don't need to prove nothing, the fact that you're reading this is prove enough that awraness relies on your senses
>>19289662
>because knowing anything discloses the fact of you being aware of it
it disclose just the moment you're aware of
>You can't have knowledge of anything without being aware at that very moment of it.
the same can be said about time and space, so how can awarness trascend those and be unchangeable?

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 02:07:10 2021 No.19290477

i think the big problem with a pure awarness is that you can said the same thing about space and time, thus you can postulate a pure object, and that ends up creating a "pure relationship"(as hegel postulates in the second section of consciousness)
so the basic idea that by being a pure thing awarness can trascend space and time is defeated since space/time by that same logic also is a pure object,since space/time is a necessity in every experience imaginable, so awarness would get trapped again in this world, being even more immanent than before

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 03:42:00 2021 No.19290814
File: 46 KB, 300x386, War-neuroses._Wellcome_L0023554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19288891
Go back to high school, kid. The point is what is shown here: •
As a category, we can interpret this as a category with a single object • and a single morphism (the identity morphism on the object, which is not shown in the picture since it is automatic). This can be generalised recursively to higher categories; as an (n+1)-category, the point consists of a single object • whose endomorphism n-category is the point (now understood as an n-category). Of course, to make this work, the point must be a symmetric monoidal n-category at each stage, but it is (in a unique way). In the limit, the point can even be understood as an ∞-category, with a unique j-morphism for each j≥0 (each of which is an identity for j>0). In the other direction, the point is a singleton set with a unique element •. It can also be seen as a truth value that is true. It can even be understood as the (−2)-category.

As a topological space, the point space is the usual point from geometry: that which has no part. In more modern language, we might say that it has no structure —except that something exists. (So it is not empty!) This is consistent with the preceding paragraphs using the interpretation of a topological space as an ∞-groupoid. (But up to homotopy equivalence, any contractible space qualifies as a point.)

In all of the above, the point can be seen as a terminal object in an appropriate category (or ∞
-category). However, you can also see it as a null object in a category of pointed objects. (Of course, it's always true that a terminal object 1 in C becomes a null object in 1/C, but the dual argument also holds, so the question is which is the primary picture.)
But perhaps the point is best seen as the unique object in itself: •={•},
an equation that makes sense as a definition in the theory of ill-founded pure sets. Another possible definition (this time well-founded) in pure set theory is that the point is {O}, but this doesn't capture the picture that we get from higher category theory: the (−1)-category (truth value) of the (−2)-category (the point) is true (which is also the point), the 0-category (set) of the true truth value is the singleton (which is also the point), the 1-category (category) of the singleton (and all of its endofunctions!) is the terminal category (which is also the point), and so on. That is:
•∈•∈•∈•∈⋯.

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 04:31:50 2021 No.19290954

>>19290814
lol you didn't disprove that a point is just a location in space and thus without extension, you just copy pasted this article:https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/point
hoping to look smart, but you're so dumb you didn't realize none of that negates the basic notion that a point is a set of cartesian cordinates and thus it doesn't have extension

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 04:32:33 2021 No.19290957

>>19288914
>and awarness need something to be aware of, there's no such thing as pure awarness
Yes. You are distinct by nature from God and from other creation so you can be aware of them as objects. But intellect is still immaterial.
>>19288368
You can when you die. What's holding it down is the created natural bond between the body and soul which dissolves upon death. Immaterial doesn't mean completely ever-present, it only means without material parts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 04:42:16 2021 No.19290994 >>19290814 lmao you copy pasted from a website you are humiliating yourself, buddy. consider killing yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 04:56:43 2021 No.19291033 >>19284763 >since it cannot have parts, must also be without area I don't agree with this, and as the rest follows out of this, it is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:01:00 2021 No.19291046 >>19290954 >>19290994 >SEETHING

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:01:58 2021 No.19291048 >>19291046 dilate

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:02:23 2021 No.19291051

>>19290957
>Yes. You are distinct by nature from God and from other creation
that's a statement not an argument
>so you can be aware of them as objects.
againnot an argument, just a statement
>But intellect is still immaterial.
that's also a statement not an argument, also a dualistic statement, which i think goes against the so beloved non-dualist philsopohy advaita love so much

all of that is just a huge petitio principii, which end up in circular reasoning
you already take for granted that awarness is previous to experience (but fail to explain how)
if you wann amake a point explain how awarness can exist outside of any experience which is the other vital component of awarness, since awarness needs a subject and an object, and i don't need to prove that since it's self evident, thefact that you(subject) can read this(object) right now proves that awarness is subjective, the burden of proof is in your side
and saying that you can think about awarness beingin eveyr epxrrience doesn0t prove that awarness can exist outside epxreince, just proves that as human being we can conceptualize and create ideas of our experiences, the idea of pure awarness exist in the same way the idea of pure justice or pure love, as an abstraction,a cateory of our undertsanding, and you can't prove that justice or love exist outside this world, love an djustice both need things in which to be predicated, both are states if you want, just as awarness if there's no object to suffer that state it can't exist, so they're interdependent, victims of change and flux, and part of the continuum of space/time

>You can when you die. What's holding it down is the created natural bond between the body and soul which dissolves upon death. Immaterial doesn't mean completely ever-present, it only means without material parts.
okey this is just magical thinking, there's no logic here

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:05:56 2021 No.19291059

>>19291046

lol theguenonfag was caught red handed trying so hard to look smart, but end up looking like a dumb slut copypasting things he don't understand, and so it has to backtrack to his /pol/ level insults to save his ego, such an insecure little bitch, shankara would be proud

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:06:50 2021 No.19291065 Can you give a counter example? Even the modern "atom" can be split into 2 different "atom".

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:08:30 2021 No.19291070 >>19291059 >Schizophrenia

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:12:38 2021 No.19291079 >>19291059 are you retarded? that was the anti-guenonfag. read again

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:13:13 2021 No.19291081 >>19291070 >tranny

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:17:19 2021 No.19291100

>>19290957
>Immaterial doesn't mean completely ever-present
it should man that since in order to be immaterial it should be outside of time/space, thus making it something that should in one way or another exist in all places and times, since if not it means it's located, thus part of the material continuum

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:25:18 2021 No.19291130 >>19291081 I bet you come here everyday to get humiliated before fapping to cųck porn. Is the extra orgasm really worth it? Because if I were your dad and saw this thread I would be very embarrassed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:31:03 2021 No.19291153 >>19291130 dude you just posted cringe

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:42:03 2021 No.19291199 >>19291130 >to get humiliated i know your whole paradigm was created by 4chan, but bro the word "SEETHING" does not humiliate anyone

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:43:28 2021 No.19291207 I am the OP and this is my first reply on the thread. Too much off topic posting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 05:45:53 2021 No.19291220 >>19291153 >he thinks all this damage control can do anything to save his face You lost jew now fuck off. Any one can track the post and see your humiliation and that atomism got utterly refuted. Feel free to kys.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 06:12:28 2021 No.19291300 >>19290954 >>19290994 top kek, /lit/ is literally too retarded to realize who they're replying to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 06:13:50 2021 No.19291305 >>19291220 >jew that's another insult that offends absolutely no one

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 06:29:16 2021 No.19291341 >>19285630 >>19285805 >>19285879 >>19285985 >>19286092 >>19286167 >>19288891 if you weren't a disingenuous shitposter, you'd be talking to the fags over at the nForum yet you aren't, what's up with that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 12:10:40 2021 No.19292572 >>19285638 he would reject "0.999..."

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 17:00:48 2021 No.19293934 fuck guenon

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 18:13:20 2021 No.19294363 File: 60 KB, 888x894, 1352038502857.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Guenon makes the commoners seethe. Stick to Marx and exoteric christcuckery, which is for the plebs

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 18:18:12 2021 No.19294399 File: 237 KB, 853x1000, 1632451628010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19293934

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 20:34:20 2021 No.19295225 >>19286318 Well, hold on there. I'm a programmer and I hate computers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 20:36:40 2021 No.19295241 >>19291305 >upset enough to make this comment lol ok.

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:22:04 2021 No.19295450

>>19284763
“But i f reason is the final arbiter in deciding whether the presentations of the senses can be trusted, reason is also the final arbiter in deciding whether the presentations of reason itself can be trusted. Reason, for example, must be the source of the notion of atoms (paramtifJu), since atoms' are too small to be directly sensed through vision or any of the other senses. Atomicity is a concept through which we make an attempt to understand the world, and it has every appearance of being a most natural sort of concept, for prima jacie there is nothing at all odd in the notion of that which is tiny (afJu) to the greatest possible extent (parama). But a little reflection on the matter shows that the concept of atoms leads to inconsistencies. Vasubandhu deals with this topic in verses 11-14 of the Vi~ikii. The argument that he gives there can be condensed as follows. If an atom is really ultimately tiny, then it cannot be made up of parts that are physically smaller than the atom itself. But if the atom has no parts, then the region of space occupied by the atom can have no subregions; there can be no upper region or lower region or eastern region and so on. But if that is true, then the atom can occupy no space at all. And if one atom occupies no space, then several atoms added together cannot occupy any space. Therefore what reason presents to us, namely, that a macroscopic object is a complex of a very large number of ultimately small component parts, cannot really be the case after all. The atom, then, is a concept to which there cannot correspond anything in the real world.”

From Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs by Hayes

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:23:06 2021 No.19295456 >>19295241 >upset enough by that comment to make this other comment damn you get triggered os easily, get out of pol/ bro

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:25:33 2021 No.19295460 >>19295450 shankara once again stealing from buddhist

Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:26:08 2021 No.19295462

>>19295450
The same stupid shit repeated. Atoms are point particles and have no volume. The way they interact is by exerting a force in the volume surrounding them.
>since atoms' are too small to be directly sensed through vision or any of the other senses
Science never took off in India before contact with Europeans. I wonder why

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:48:35 2021 No.19295555 >>19286015 >Physical experiment definitely backs up the existence of the Cartesian plane in reality HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF STEM FAGS

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:51:08 2021 No.19295566 >>19295555 I start at a position facing towards a wall. I move three feet to the right. I move two feet towards the wall. Am I now three feet to the right and two feet towards the wall of my starting position?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:53:11 2021 No.19295575 >>19295456 >is literally seething because people on 4chan are redpilled on j*ws OY VEY!

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 21:58:26 2021 No.19295606 File: 170 KB, 360x346, 1623451279560.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >midwits trying to refute Guenon, pbuh OH NONONONO

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 26 22:48:33 2021 No.19295863 >>19289433 >so a rock can be aware? Yes.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature