What is the nature of our existence?

[iNow]

That it’s a model 

On 8/13/2023 at 10:04 PM, Genady said:

I actually try to argue that existence of mathematical objects is a model for existence of all objects.

 

4 minutes ago, naitche said:

Then how should I have interpreted this?

 

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, naitche said:

Then how should I have interpreted this?

"A model": we can investigate existence of mathematical objects and then use this knowledge as basis of the investigation in other realms.

It is similar to the use of "model organisms" in biology.

[naitche]

Model. from Mode see modal.

[Genady]

Model organism - Wikipedia:

Quote

A model organism (often shortened to model) is a non-human species that is extensively studied to understand particular biological phenomena, with the expectation that discoveries made in the model organism will provide insight into the workings of other organisms.

 

[naitche]

57 minutes ago, Genady said:

Model organism - Wikipedia:

 

Presumming the model is equal to the workings. 

[Genady]

5 hours ago, naitche said:

Presumming the model is equal to the workings. 

Nope. Insight into the workings.

[naitche]

Yep. Knowledge and understanding of the structure. That which instructs any definition to be had.

As a whole. Discrediting its parts as un-equal to the existence is a double negative, and will lead you to nothing. 

Its how evolution, and biology work, this selection based on diversity of values, and the objectives they serve. when state dictates values, they are entropic. 

The structure is equal to the state, or nothing is equal to its definition.

Edited August 18, 2023 by naitche

[naitche]

Too late to edit. should read nothing can equal its definition.

[John Cuthber]

"What is the nature of our existence?"
Ephemeral.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Too late to edit. should read nothing can equal its definition.

 

3 hours ago, naitche said:

Yep. Knowledge and understanding of the structure. That which instructs any definition to be had.

As a whole. Discrediting its parts as un-equal to the existence is a double negative, and will lead you to nothing. 

Its how evolution, and biology work, this selection based on diversity of values, and the objectives they serve. when state dictates values, they are entropic. 

The structure is equal to the state, or nothing is equal to its definition.

What are you talking about?

[studiot]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:43 AM, naitche said:

On 8/13/2023 at 10:42 PM, studiot said:

I really think this discussion is pushing against the boundaries of language here.

 

I believe the language is equal to the objective, and the presumptions of its properties is misplaced. It is based on both subjective and the objective values- Both the State and direction of existence.

 

Thank you for replying.

You have certainly gone well beyond the boundaries of my native English as I certainly didn't understand what you mean, except that you think English is up to the job of expressing whatever it is you want to express.

So please explain further.

[studiot]

On 8/14/2023 at 11:15 AM, Genady said:

I'm curious, which solutions you allude to.

Here is some more meat, following on from my previous answer to your question.

 

Modern teaching of set theory is generally oblivious to the deeper issues that occupied the minds of those around at the time of Russell such as the effect on the properties of the sets v the properties of the elements.

Here is and interesting extract from a postgraduate textbook of the time which does not mention intersectioction, union and so forth whcih are the current foundations but spends several chapters exploring the above issue.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Here is some more meat, following on from my previous answer to your question.

 

Modern teaching of set theory is generally oblivious to the deeper issues that occupied the minds of those around at the time of Russell such as the effect on the properties of the sets v the properties of the elements.

Here is and interesting extract from a postgraduate textbook of the time which does not mention intersectioction, union and so forth whcih are the current foundations but spends several chapters exploring the above issue.

Thank you. Yes, this is new to me, although it is not surprising as my course of set theory was quite basic. But why did you call these solutions "not altogether satisfactory"?

[naitche]

Thank you.

My reply is relevant to the idea Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things, and also is manifestation real?

Mathematics is a duality, that English accounts for in the objective and subjective.

A value given, yes. but it must also 'register' . It must register to equal its reality. It is relative.

On 8/18/2023 at 9:36 PM, studiot said:

 

Thank you for replying.

You have certainly gone well beyond the boundaries of my native English as I certainly didn't understand what you mean, except that you think English is up to the job of expressing whatever it is you want to express.

So please explain further.

I'm called away a few days, and won't be able to reply till I return.

Edited August 19, 2023 by naitche

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, naitche said:

Thank you.

My reply is relevant to the idea Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things, and also is manifestation real?

Mathematics is a duality, that English accounts for in the objective and subjective.

A value given, yes. but it must also 'register' . It must register to equal its reality. It is relative.

I'm called away a few days, and won't be able to reply till I return.

 

Your reply may be relevant to many things, especially since they are interlinked.

However I am sorry to say that I still am no wiser as to what you are saying.

 

Pewrhaps it would help if I observed (as I have dome several times in the past)  that there is nothing you can say in Mathematics that cannot be said in plain English, the converse is not true since there are many things you can say (express) in English that cannot be said mathematically.

 

Is this what you are alluding to ?

[naitche]

Seems to me people are over thinking this. 

Its not complicated. Mathematics reduced to its most base principle. Values and their properties are provided, to arrive at a given sum.

The subjective values provide the the Objective sum. It amounts to nothing  without those. Is a measure of nothing. 

If values that contribute to the sum are excluded, The Objective is not realized. 

If values not included in the sum are applied, The Objective is not realized.

The Subjective directs the realization of The Objective. 

 Inclusive of all contributing values. Its subject properties. Those recognized in service to the same Objective. 

Subjective is inclusive and relative.

Exclusive of values serving unrelated Objectives. Those not recognized to serve the Objective in common.

The Objective is reductive and exclusive. Of unrelated values.

The Subjective provides direction.

The Objective is the expression of the state served by that direction. The structure achieved.

Realization is dependent on recognition of the order, and which is applicable to a given situation.

I came to this from a completely different direction and  over a long period. It appears to work, as far as I am aware with out contradicting any known laws of physics.

I believe there is a cognitive dissonance that complicates its recognition, I think most likely the role of conscious thought, and the role it plays in humanities expressions.

ie, the idea that we will have a better expression of Humanity if we refuse recognition and direction of its more unsavory parts, rather than investing in our common objective to minimize the unsavory affects.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, naitche said:

Seems to me people are over thinking this. 

Yes, you are; one day you might make sense, but not today...

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, you are; one day you might make sense, but not today...

!

Moderator Note

If you don't understand what someone is saying, please ask questions. Don't attack them personally. Try to clarify exactly where your understanding has failed when you make replies like this. Stop trolling.

 

[Genady]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

Mathematics reduced to its most base principle. Values and their properties are provided, to arrive at a given sum.

Can you clarify your statements with an example? If you don't mind, please describe the Pythagoras theorem in your terminology.

[naitche]

On 8/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, studiot said:

 

Your reply may be relevant to many things, especially since they are interlinked.

However I am sorry to say that I still am no wiser as to what you are saying.

 

Pewrhaps it would help if I observed (as I have dome several times in the past)  that there is nothing you can say in Mathematics that cannot be said in plain English, the converse is not true since there are many things you can say (express) in English that cannot be said mathematically.

 

Is this what you are alluding to ?

More that the role and universality of language assumes a much greater depth and simplicity at the same time, with proper recognition the Objectives and subjective. 

On 8/29/2023 at 12:43 AM, Genady said:

Can you clarify your statements with an example? If you don't mind, please describe the Pythagoras theorem in your terminology.

No, I can't. As stated I'm very far from being a mathematician. It should not be essential to the purpose regardless. It may or may not complicate my attempts at explanation. Its basic language of subjective to objective informs the language we commonly use. 

Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?

I would say through relativity. Any objective considered in relationship is a value application.

All relationships are value expressions,

Mathematics and spoken/written language are only two ways of expressing value.

Training animals is communication, expression of values, and their recognition. The interplays of environment on objects and organisms are value expressions. All subjective.

The effects of biological selection and evolution are value expressions, as is our Human condition. 

[Genady]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?

I would say through relativity. Any objective considered in relationship is a value application.

Yes, perhaps. But also, how we define 'relativity', 'relationship', and 'objective' in this context.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, naitche said:

More that the role and universality of language assumes a much greater depth and simplicity at the same time, with proper recognition the Objectives and subjective. 

No, I can't. As stated I'm very far from being a mathematician. It should not be essential to the purpose regardless. It may or may not complicate my attempts at explanation. Its basic language of subjective to objective informs the language we commonly use. 

Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?

I would say through relativity. Any objective considered in relationship is a value application.

All relationships are value expressions,

Mathematics and spoken/written language are only two ways of expressing value.

Training animals is communication, expression of values, and their recognition. The interplays of environment on objects and organisms are value expressions. All subjective.

The effects of biological selection and evolution are value expressions, as is our Human condition. 

what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence?

"Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?"

Isn't being alive value enough in this contex?

[naitche]

On 8/30/2023 at 9:16 PM, Genady said:

Yes, perhaps. But also, how we define 'relativity', 'relationship', and 'objective' in this context.

Yes. There needs to be recognition across context, inclusive of all existence.

On 8/30/2023 at 11:56 PM, dimreepr said:

what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence?

"Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?"

Isn't being alive value enough in this contex?

Thats a question for the op.

But o.k, lets try that, and say that existence is the 1st value. Objectively. All by its self. Subtracted from any 'other value'. Its a subtraction to a single value, out of many possibilities for recognition.

What is its application, without reference to any other  value applicable to its being?

Application is always relative, and subject to its relativity/relationship.

The objective is always subtractive /objective to any 'other' value.

Its application, or value, is subjective.

 

[Genady]

What is the nature of our existence?

Assuming that our means humans', our existence has physical, chemical, biological, and social natures.

 

[naitche]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What is the nature of our existence?

Assuming that our means humans', our existence has physical, chemical, biological, and social natures.

 

Yes. But those are  objectively independent. Their interactions are not.

The values they provide to our existence, are subject to it.

Similar to nature or nurture, environment and organism. 

Theres no nurture without nature, or organism without environment.

Its a two part equation to arrive at a whole.

The objective is always an objective, while its has the support to be one.

Only the value(s) it provides, are subjective. In application.

Edited September 1, 2023 by naitche