What is the nature of our existence?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

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

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.

What makes you think that that, makes sense?

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Its application, or value, is subjective.

No shit Sherlock:

On 8/30/2023 at 2:56 PM, dimreepr said:

Isn't being alive value enough in this contex?

Our existance is natural, ergo the nature of our existence is a closed loop; unless we think ourselves out of the argument... 🤔🤒😣

[studiot]

On 8/30/2023 at 3:12 AM, 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. 

Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

🙂  +1

On 8/30/2023 at 3:12 AM, naitche said:

No, I can't. As stated I'm very far from being a mathematician

 

On 8/30/2023 at 3:12 AM, 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.

I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

 

But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

 

Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

 

So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

Science, in particular, tries to remain objective by various means. We like to think that if se set up a machine to observe and/or record it is objective because it can only record what it observes.
But I know that Nature can play tricks on us, from my own personal experience during my time as a surveyor.

When making important verticular angular measurements it is good practice to observe from both ends of the observation line.
One end will generally be below the other so looking up (+ve angle) and the other end looking down (-ve) angle.
But I have seen situations where it is possible for both angles to be +ve. That is both ends of the line appear to be looking down on the other.

The angular measurement instrument (theodolite) is correct (objective) and it is not operator error.

So Science is able to correct its faulty theory.

Edited September 1, 2023 by studiot

[naitche]

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think that that, makes sense?

No shit Sherlock:

When you can point me to some one who has been able to elucidate what I am seeing, better, I won't feel the need to keep trying to do it myself.

In the meantime, Theres nothing constructive to a science forum in discrediting the attempts made on no other grounds than you  don't understand.

My purpose here is to try to understand this well enough that I can explain it.

I have no doubts there is some thing to be explained. 

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Our existance is natural, ergo the nature of our existence is a closed loop; unless we think ourselves out of the argument... 🤔🤒😣

Oh thanks, thats cleared every thing up.

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

🙂  +1

 

I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

 

But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

 

Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

 

So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

Science, in particular, tries to remain objective by various means. We like to think that if se set up a machine to observe and/or record it is objective because it can only record what it observes.
But I know that Nature can play tricks on us, from my own personal experience during my time as a surveyor.

When making important verticular angular measurements it is good practice to observe from both ends of the observation line.
One end will generally be below the other so looking up (+ve angle) and the other end looking down (-ve) angle.
But I have seen situations where it is possible for both angles to be +ve. That is both ends of the line appear to be looking down on the other.

The angular measurement instrument (theodolite) is correct (objective) and it is not operator error.

So Science is able to correct its faulty theory.

Thankyou. I will consider these and see how/if they fit into this or contribute.

I appreciate your constructive input.

Edited September 2, 2023 by naitche

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

When you can point me to some one who has been able to elucidate what I am seeing, better, I won't feel the need to keep trying to do it myself.

Ok, in the contex of this topic, any reference to objectives/objectivity is meaningless; therefore it's entirely subjective, and therefore no matter how many words you use, we will never, fully, share the same elucidation on this subject.

So in answer to the topic title, it depends on what you are, but only if what you are is alive.

Which also answer's this:

10 hours ago, naitche said:

On 9/1/2023 at 12:46 PM, dimreepr said:

Our existance is natural, ergo the nature of our existence is a closed loop; unless we think ourselves out of the argument... 🤔🤒😣

Oh thanks, thats cleared every thing up.

I can but hope...

[Genady]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

only if what you are is alive

I think that the biological nature of our existence requires us to be alive. The other three natures, i.e., the physical, the chemical, and the social, do not.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that the biological nature of our existence requires us to be alive. The other three natures, i.e., the physical, the chemical, and the social, do not.

Indeed, a rock would struggle to think...

[iNow]

And yet it still exists. 

Non cogito, et tamen sum

[naitche]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:29 AM, studiot said:

Thank you for this reply and the other posts you have recently made.

I hope I am now clear on your input and can now discuss it further.

🙂  +1

 

I'll come back to 'value' in the context of your introduction of 'objective v subjective' in a moment.

 

But first your use of relativity and relationship, although these words stem from the same root, they have different meanings and usage.

Even though you are not a mathematician, you should be easily able to understand the very basic concept of 'relationship' in mathematics and logic.

Like so many basic concepts in so many subjects 'relationship' manifests itself as having many shades of meaning. The are many types of relationship recognised. In fact it is a broad category and we distingusih further by either introducing special new words (as in function) or additional adjectives as in equivalence relation.

You might find it useful to look at your own language wiki to find out about a particularly useful one in maths called an equivalence relation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

 

Here you can see that in this type of relation you can sometimes substitute one 'value' for another  - there is no subjectivity allowed according to the rules.

 

So subjective v objective. I hear what you say about this but Nature (Physics, maths, everything) is remarkably obstinate in resisting Man's efforts to squeeze it into his own subjective categorisations.

And so it is with subjective v objective. This is not an either or (binary) choice, but rather a scale of meaning.

Science, in particular, tries to remain objective by various means. We like to think that if se set up a machine to observe and/or record it is objective because it can only record what it observes.
But I know that Nature can play tricks on us, from my own personal experience during my time as a surveyor.

When making important verticular angular measurements it is good practice to observe from both ends of the observation line.
One end will generally be below the other so looking up (+ve angle) and the other end looking down (-ve) angle.
But I have seen situations where it is possible for both angles to be +ve. That is both ends of the line appear to be looking down on the other.

The angular measurement instrument (theodolite) is correct (objective) and it is not operator error.

So Science is able to correct its faulty theory.

No, this information  does not  conflict with my theory. Only the objective is fixed, by definition.

As for the language, again, the language assumes greater depth of meaning and clarity. The subjective is always relative. 

This came to me through study of Constitution and social science, the effects of constitution on the cultures informed by them, and how they might be altered.  I will come back  and attempt to explain through the example I studied. Trouble with internet connection atm.

Edited September 28, 2023 by naitche

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

No, this information  does not  conflict with my theory. Only the objective is fixed, by definition.

As for the language, again, the language assumes greater depth of meaning and clarity. The subjective is always relative. 

This came to me through study of Constitution and social science, the effects of constitution on the cultures informed by them, and how they might be altered.  I will come back  and attempt to explain through the example I studied. Trouble with internet connection atm.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but your theory/hypothesis is, the nature of our existence is subjective...

A rock exists, it just doesn't think about it... 😉

[studiot]

19 hours ago, naitche said:

I will come back  and attempt to explain through the example I studied.

Examples are really good when we are talking about words such as objective and subjective, so we both understand what the other means.

[naitche]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but your theory/hypothesis is, the nature of our existence is subjective...

A rock exists, it just doesn't think about it... 😉

The rock exists, Objectively, by its definition.

The nature of that rocks existence is subjective, to its 'experience'. The 'values'  or otherwise defined objective existences that contribute to its make up and the actions upon it.

Without which its definition is not achieved. Its a duality.

Existence is an Object reality. Its nature is subject to what is brought to it, or assumed, into its expression.

[naitche]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but your theory/hypothesis is, the nature of our existence is subjective...

A rock exists, it just doesn't think about it... 😉

Be careful what you assume. Its an investment of your self expression.

Edited September 29, 2023 by naitche

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, naitche said:

The rock exists, Objectively, by its definition.

The nature of that rocks existence is subjective, to its 'experience'. The 'values'  or otherwise defined objective existences that contribute to its make up and the actions upon it.

Without which its definition is not achieved. Its a duality.

Existence is an Object reality. Its nature is subject to what is brought to it, or assumed, into its expression.

Some time's more word's lead to less understanding, unless your seriously suggesting that a rock has time to think about it??? 🙄

6 hours ago, naitche said:

Be careful what you assume. Its an investment of your self expression.

If that made sense, it would be on a bumper already... 🧐

[MSC]

On 8/30/2023 at 3:12 AM, 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. 

I really like how you worded this. The primary commonality between the study of mathematics and ethics is value expression. Which your comment made me consciously realise. Updoot.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

I really like how you worded this. The primary commonality between the study of mathematics and ethics is value expression. Which your comment made me consciously realise. Updoot.

Is there a number for the value of ethics?

[MSC]

On 8/30/2023 at 3:12 AM, 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.

All relationships are value expressions,

You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. 

Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. 

Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". 

Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. 

Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MSC said:

You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. 

Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. 

Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". 

Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. 

Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups. 

 

 

So, what's the number?

[MSC]

On 9/2/2023 at 4:13 PM, iNow said:

And yet it still exists. 

Non cogito, et tamen sum

Pars mei conscia semper, pars mei semper dormit. Cogitationis conscius sum, ergo sum.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Pars mei conscia semper, pars mei semper dormit. Cogitationis conscius sum, ergo sum.

Is that the latin for the number?

[MSC]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is there a number for the value of ethics?

The truth value of ethics in relation to us; the amount of objective things I can say about ethics is reasonably numerous. Of course you can do the inverse to determine falsity value being the amount of untrue statements you can make about a given subject, which is always going to be dealing with exponentially greater numbers than truth values. 

What you're really asking me though though, is why should ethics matter to you? What is the value of ethics to you. If you want more time to be able to consider the nature of your existence, you need to learn how to survive. Humans use ethics to survive.  The difference between ethics and hunting is one relates to your physical relationship with food, the other your physical and social relationship with the people around you. Individually we all have a sense killing is wrong because it could lead to our own death in retaliation or a prison sentence and most people hating you and ostracising you. It's not conducive to long term survival. 

Studying ethics, understanding how we think about right and wrong and length, breadth and depth of thought on the matter, leads to a greater understanding of how to safely interact with each other which leads to a higher probability of living long AND well. 

 

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is that the latin for the number?

Dude you need to chill out a bit. Take five, I'm not an AI chatbot and I'm respecting you enough to take my time and write out a response but you need to respect that I'm catching up on this discussion, there was a lot to go through, you weren't the only other person in the discussion and I'm not your performing monkey or your mum.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, MSC said:

What you're really asking me though though, is why should ethics matter to you?

Nope, I'm just asking if you know what the number is???

[MSC]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, I'm just asking if you know what the number is???

Greater than zero lol what's the point of this line of questioning for you?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

Greater than zero lol what's the point of this line of questioning for you?

Just wondering...

[naitche]

On 2/12/2024 at 12:30 AM, MSC said:

You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. 

Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. 

Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". 

Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. 

Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups. 

 

 

No worries. I've been away too long myself. 1st from p.c troubles, then other causes. I will get back to this topic asap, currently recovering from surgery to both wrists a day ago, makes this typing too difficult yet...

[MSC]

On 2/16/2024 at 1:46 AM, naitche said:

No worries. I've been away too long myself. 1st from p.c troubles, then other causes. I will get back to this topic asap, currently recovering from surgery to both wrists a day ago, makes this typing too difficult yet...

Completely understand. I hope your recovery goes well. Definitely don't push it, we're a patient lot here... well @dimreepr isn't, but the rest of us are!