nyquistfreq

I never said human intelligence was limited, it could in fact be unlimited depending on how you define it, rather I said theories must be limited by their very nature since all theories must be about something in particular, therefore even some transcendent non-human being could not even make such a theory, for even if that being's intellect was unlimited, to produce a particular theory would be to limit the unlimited, which is impossible. Also every limited or known universe is dependent upon what is outside of it to be known, since only a recognizable difference between two things can count for knowledge. So every theory that attempts to explain something can only explain that something by virtue of that which lies outside of it, and there is always an outside for any particular thing. This means what is known is always dependent upon the unknown in order to explain it, thus such a complete explanation will never be reached, it will forever be incomplete, ultimately never truly explaining anything.

You seem to confuse free will and awareness. Awareness should not be identified with the mechanisms of the brain or one's personal autonomy, if any. Otherwise one would be unable to be aware of their own lack of autonomy. To recognize a limitation already presupposes something not bound by that limitation. For otherwise that something would be indistinguishable from the limitation itself - awareness is not the product of its contents. So already through the recognition of your own lack of autonomy you have clearly demonstrated otherwise. Your determinism necessitates that all is caused by something outside of itself. And here cause means "reason for being" so it does not have to be a temporal cause. But if everything in totality were always caused by something else, that something else would always be excluded from the totality, and therefore that totality would not be total, because it would not include the thing which caused it. Absolute determinism is therefore an impossibility (a self negation), in that it seeks to place an absolute limitation on reality.

I think you are on exactly the right path with this intuition. However it is not clear enough - you still need to define what logic is. Also the universe is thought of in modernity as having properties such as time and space. To say "logic predates the universe" is already a temporal statement, but time itself presupposes logical distinction between "before" and "after." Therefore, logic cannot begin in time; it must precede time, not temporally but in principle. This is the exact problem with the "big bang" which is considered to be the event at which time began - a "time=0". Yet, an event is by definition a position within time. To call an event “the beginning of time” is to say: "There was a time before time began," which is self-contradictory. I'm going to give you a hint as to what logic really is and how it precedes time: A temporal process, whether it be motion, growth or becoming, always seems to imply succession, one state replacing another. Yet the infinitesimal calculus of Leibniz and Newton shows that this succession can approach a limit that is never reached, yet always defines the process itself. The limit is not part of the becoming, but the principle, the Being, by which the becoming is made intelligible. The seed of a tree once planted will get closer and closer to treeness without ever reaching it, sometimes the approach is quicker, sometimes the approach is slower and impeded, yet only the stage of the tree's growth will change, the tree will never become other than what it is.

Okay a good objection. I should have explained this a bit better. I did not mean that Newton's laws, or any scientific law fails because there are too many entities. What I was trying to get at is that every law, even those rigorously proven, operates within a defined domain of reference. A law's very precision depends on that limited definition. It is simply that outside a certain domain of facts the pattern that described that domain no longer applies. Consider the law that applies to all even numbers, they are divisible by two without remainder, there are an endless number of evens to which this law applies. However once we go outside of the domain of even numbers, this law no longer applies, and where this law doesn't apply is similarly endless. Now imagine if you wanted to describe a law that applies to all numbers, well the only laws that would apply to all numbers are those laws that would make them numbers to begin with. But look what happened, every time we tried to define what a number was we discovered something that fell outside of our limited definitions or laws of number: Naturals, integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers, if you think numbers must be countable we discovered uncountable numbers, if you think geometry must be Euclidean we discovered non-Euclidean geometry. The same pattern is observed in physics, Classical mechanics is valid within certain conditions, relativity extends those conditions, quantum theory goes further. To describe something and create a law is to define and constrain what that thing is as opposed to or in relation to what it is not, but whatever something is must contrast with what it is not, it must be different from that which falls outside its constraints, otherwise it would not be anything in particular, it would have no real definition. For instance, numbers must be different than trees or colors or emotions and feelings or anything else otherwise they would cease to be numbers, and instead be something abstract and ambiguous. Thus to define is to limit, to limit is to exclude, and exclusion entails incompleteness.

I had to get to sleep.. Anyways this is an honest objection, that deserves some serious explaining to prevent further misunderstandings. You have confused the limitation proper to a thing with the limitation of the Absolute itself. That the circumference of a circle is incommensurable with its diameter and that this ratio is definitely less than four does not in fact limit the non-limited (Absolute), this is because a circle itself is not the Absolute, a circle is a circle and nothing but a circle, and it is through the fact that it is limited to being itself and not something else that it gains its immutable properties, and all circles are granted this immutable property of being what they are by participation in the Absolute which is the source of all immutability. All limited affirmations participate in an non-limited affirmation, yet do not constitute its parts for that would be to limit the Absolute to being a sum of finite parts. Let me describe this participation a bit deeper so you understand. Speaking about anything implicitly affirms something in particular. Without affirmation we communicate nothing. For even if a sound is made, is the implicit affirmation of that sound, to paint a picture is the implicit affirmation of that picture. This is such that the occurrence of every happening or appearance is in itself the implicit affirmation of that happening or appearance. If this were not the case, this could not be read and consequently responded to, since nothing would have occurred to be responded to. Negation, on the other hand, only arises through limited or incomplete affirmations. Negation is realized through the affirmation of something in particular, through what has been excluded from one's affirmation. Negation, a privation, is the shadow of Affirmation. "Limitation presents the character of a veritable negation, to set a limit is to deny that which is limited everything that this limit excludes, and consequently the negation of a limit is properly the negation of a negation, that is to say, logically, and even mathematically, an affirmation, so that in reality the negation of all limit is equivalent to total and Absolute Affirmation." - Guenon Multiple States of the Being Thus we have revealed that the principle of Being is an Absolute Affirmation that includes everything and excludes nothing. Because of this, it cannot be any particular thing or a limited affirmation, since that would make it exclusive and conditional. Therefore the principle of Being is not a being, it possesses no particular existence in itself, for it is the universal principle of existence. Here's a more concrete analogy: (this is purely an analogy to aid understanding, there is no need for empirical objections, it is best to think of it occurring inside a computer with sound files) It is only logical that if we were to play the totality of possible sounds simultaneously, there would always be one sound which would be the exact opposite polarity of another, causing each and every sound to cancel with its polar opposite resulting in silence. (think of noise cancelling headphones or phase cancellation) So all sounds is not any particular sound. But is all sound in totality devoid of all form and consequently manifest existence? That would clearly contradict our experience of sound itself. All I have realized here is that every possibility cannot be evaluated to an undifferentiated single unified manifestation, as there are possibilities which are mutually incompatible with one another. Therefore the totality of Being has no particular existence in of itself so it is derived from a principle of Non-Being which precedes it. Non-Being is not an absolute void or pure nothingness but rather just no-thing in particular, because it isn't a thing, it is pure ability or potential, the ability or potential to be anything. For instance if someone couldn't ride a bike or swim could you tell that they couldn't just by looking at them if they weren't riding a bike or swimming? Just as in the realm of sound, total simultaneity resolves to silence, so too in the realm of form, total potentiality resolves to formlessness. Can you directly see every possible piece of unique pottery a formless piece of clay has the ability to become if sculpted? No, all formations are products of the Intellect and are not contained within pure potential itself the this goes to show that the ability to be something is not the form of the act or thing itself. To confuse Non-Being with nothingness is to collapse possibility into impossibility. And impossibility is something very different. Impossibility is absolute negation, as opposed to affirmation whether absolute or limited. But affirmation is prior to negation, and so every negation must affirm something. This establishes the absolute impossibility of an absolute negation. The easiest way to identify an impossibility is through self-negation or self-contradiction. Making the ultimate proof of falsity self-negation. For if something negates itself, it negates all else that is its extension, negating absolutely. And if one negates absolutely, the absolute negation, negating without limits, must also negate itself. For instance, if the statement “there is no absolute truth” were true, it would itself be the absolute truth. Furthermore, out of necessity, every explicit negation contains an implicit affirmation of the thing being negated, and therefore is a self-negation, a self contradiction, an impossibility. As we have seen we cannot reduce Being (the principle of manifestation) to Non-Being (the undifferentiated unity of all things), to be truly without limits we must posit that which is neither Being nor Non-Being, neither actual nor potential, that which includes even the possibility of possibility itself. This "neither Being nor Non-Being" is the very Absolute itself, which is beyond all categories. Having no limits the Absolute which is "neither Being nor Non-Being" can only be described in negative terms through absolute impossibilities, via negativa, neti neti, not this not that. It is often called the unspeakable divine since nothing positive can be said about it. We can summarize this like so: limited affirmation -> a particular possibility limited negation -> the privation or absence which allows for manifestation absolute affirmation -> the Absolute absolute negation -> impossibility (self negation) Now before you object by saying that the relative being different from the Absolute limits the Absolute and therefore this is nonsense. We must clarify here that the relative does not limit the Absolute in any absolute way, merely in a relative way. Let me elaborate upon this subtlety: Relativity presupposes something excluded otherwise there could be no comparison. The Absolute, by definition, has no outside. Reducing the Absolute to the relative supplies an outside and so negates the Absolute. Therefore, the Absolute cannot be relative without ceasing to be what the word means. However, the relationship between Absolute and the relative, is itself a relative one, and if there were no such relationship between relative and Absolute, then there would be an Absolute difference between the two, which is impossible. Therefore, there was never any real difference to begin with: the Absolute is not other than the relative, though it eternally transcends it. The relative exists within the Absolute as its mode of self-expression, not as something apart from it. If one is to understand this, this cannot be taken in a reductionist sense in that one limits the Absolute to pure relativity, it is necessary to identify the nature of relativity itself. What makes something relative is that it is different or contrasts something else, then one could say that what makes the Absolute relative is that the Absolute is never identical with itself in any determinate or limited way, eternally transcending all determinations, eternally self differentiating, thereby encompassing all possible difference. If the Absolute excluded difference, difference would fall outside of itself, making it relative to difference. If it included difference as a limit, it would cease to be absolute. Therefore, it must include difference indefinitely - difference that never settles into opposition. This ever transcendent difference is in fact Plato's Indefinite Dyad, the recursive eternally self-differentiating power of the Absolute. This conception also falls into to alignment with Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles which forbids exact repetitions of any sort.

I know about Zeno's paradox, the conclusion of the ancients was that time cannot be broken down into instants, the whole cannot be derived from the innumerable parts or instants of time, Zeno's paradox, although this fact has been forgotten, was used as an argument against Democritus' atomism. Now what exactly does this have to do with the argument I posed, you haven't told me the exact relationship to or even how you understood what you quoted of me here: "This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular, which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all."

What exactly does this have to do with Zeno's paradox? I don't see the relationship please explain how you understand what I have written.

Okay I am now confident I understand what you are saying. When I say two different things cannot be identical and the like, I am invoking Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles, not some formal set theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles Who the King of England at a particular date (which is a temporal title) clearly does not have all its properties common with the person themselves, thus these are two separate facts which may have some properties in common such as the name of the person. The two different things you supposed were the same were simply not fully defined, which made them appear the same but only at a certain level. I only supposed that this universe was limited as a "thought experiment", I never said it wasn't unbounded. After all it all depends on what you define as this universe, but any positive definition must thereby be limited. Anyways lets suppose the universe is unbounded, this means that there are still an unbounded number of unique facts, which cannot all be accounted for. "There is a difference between unbounded and finite. The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded." Yes this points to an important distinction that I didn't cover. I was trying to use simple language here so that anyone can get a picture of what I am talking about. I used unbounded instead of endless, because of course the endless evokes the image as being unbounded in a single direction along a single line. Unbounded can mean unbounded in any arbitrary way. When I use the word unbounded I mean not limited to the domain of any pattern, or conception such as: time, space, even number in their most extended conceptions. What I am actually talking about is the Absolute whose dictionary definition is: "Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional. Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless. " Although I use the summation of all possible facts as an example, this does not limit its definition to "facts", it was just an example to attempt to bring about understanding.

I don't know what you mean by this, and I don't want to try to guess and perhaps misunderstand, if you could express it more clearly perhaps I would understand. Tell me exactly what I have said that you are referencing and what your objection is.

This scope would make a Theory of Everything impossible. First let's get a complete definition of theory: "A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts that clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts." By this definition a true Theory of Everything would have to account for all possible facts which is an unbounded number of facts. But why would there be an unbounded number of facts? Because if we suppose that this universe is limited in some way, containing a limited set of facts, we have excluded all the facts which fall outside the limits of this universe. But those facts which this universe excludes play a part in describing or explaining the way this universe is limited, and this is because meaning only arises through difference or contrast. If two things were perfectly identical, being alike in every respect, they would not be two but one and the same thing. That is to say, two different things cannot be identical. So whatever this universe excludes limits what this universe includes, thus describing this universe and not some other universe. Now you might be thinking well what if the facts this universe excludes are finite or limited? But finite or limited in relation to what? To posit that something is finite or limited means it must exclude something from itself, otherwise it would have no boundaries which define what it is, it wouldn't be different from anything, it would be unbounded. Therefore in order to have a truly exhaustive Theory of Everything we must account for all possible facts which are unbounded. But then you might ask why would it be impossible to cover an unbounded number of facts? Because two different things cannot be identical, no two facts can be the same, each fact must be completely unique. So as you attempt to include more and more facts into your explanation, you encounter more and more edge cases. This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular, which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all. To try to account for each fact or set of facts in a compounded explanation would be an endless task directly in relation to the unbounded number of facts. It would be an explanation which wouldn't have an end, it would never be finished, always incomplete, meaning it wouldn't constitute an explanation at all.