For your consideration

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

For your consideration

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> For your consideration

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:12:21 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

quote:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.

Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical.

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.

Discuss.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:22:24 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

One must divine the difference in a material that is miscable and one which is frangible. Only then can we let substance enter into this discussion.

a priori,
Locke

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 8/31/2007 5:24:45 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:31:27 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

I agree.
We're all made up of "Stardust."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:33:30 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I'm going to have a drink and think about it.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:38:11 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I agree.
We're all made up of "Stardust."

Ya, Hoagy Carmichael; you very funny guy!

Emporer Hirohito

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:39:34 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

Hey! Who died and made you Emperor?
--Norton I, Emperor of America and Protector of Mexico

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:44:09 AM

Emperor1956

Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

No one died...yet.

E.

_____________________________

"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 5:46:01 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Ah, but I am descended from sun god, you by comparison are lowly sewer worker.

Ralph Kramden Hirohito

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:13:20 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

If there are two infinite substances, then how can one limit the other if each is infinite?

For either to act as a restraint, limitation or dependent factor on the other, would mean that neither counts as a substance under premise 1

?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:21:10 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

LE - there is a logical "hole" in your statement of the final proof. Premise 1 as the definition of substance forms the basis of the derived premises and proofs, not the other way around. Thus, your argument falls apart by it's structure but not by it's content. Right conclusion, mind - just a bad road to it...

(BTW - this was my "Neighbor of the Beast" post. Yay me!)

< Message edited by e01n -- 8/31/2007 6:22:07 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:22:33 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Seriously, the proof in conclusion is not a proof, it is horridly flawed, it has not been necessarily and sufficently proven that an infinite limits another infinite. In fact Georg Cantor has proven to my satisfaction (and many others) that this cannot possibly be the case.

YHWH

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:24:41 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

Ron... shhhh... please don't spoil the fun for the others...

BTW - any luck finding natural fibers at Ax-Man? I think that'd be the only way to hold this argument together these days...

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:29:59 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I haven't been to AxMans but I have some hemp, I am dying for a bulk source of flax yet, and will see the Ax.

Thank IAM that I can shut up now, I really am not facile enough with Abelian numbers to carry the fight.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:32:00 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: e01n

LE - there is a logical "hole" in your statement of the final proof. Premise 1 as the definition of substance forms the basis of the derived premises and proofs, not the other way around. Thus, your argument falls apart by it's structure but not by it's content. Right conclusion, mind - just a bad road to it...

(BTW - this was my "Neighbor of the Beast" post. Yay me!)

Perhaps, but if premise 1 is incorrect then the rest falls, and the final conclusion shows that premise 1 is flawed. How one gets to an answer is not as important as having an answer I feel, and I'll admit, I dont go in for conventional methodologies for much.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 14

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:38:25 AM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

e0in: Well everything is relative to something else, I do believe.

Note: Is this actually a thread about the sometimes supposed differences between POV between random Dominants and submissives? (or did you manage to wade through the Mother Thersa thread on this message board, perchance)? yuk yuk.(and I am just teasing).

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/31/2007 6:42:21 AM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 15

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:44:37 AM

GhitaAmati

Posts: 3263
Joined: 5/30/2007
Status: offline

Everything is something, therefore even nothing must be something, therefore nothing doesnt exist....

_____________________________

I said I was a submissive, I never said I was a GOOD submissive.

Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go its pretty damn good.
~Woody Allen

(in reply to SusanofO)

Profile

Post #: 16

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:47:00 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen: Perhaps, but if premise 1 is incorrect then the rest falls, and the final conclusion shows that premise 1 is flawed. How one gets to an answer is not as important as having an answer I feel, and I'll admit, I dont go in for conventional methodologies for much.

MNOttertail (aka Ron) got there first by citing the classical refutation of this philosophical grammar - magister dixit. You on the other hand are arguing that the proof should be circular and independent - much more Null-A and Null-E... Quite nice. Very apropos to WIITWD.

But is there a way to refute this using only Classical and linear grammars without recourse to external authority?

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 17

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:49:15 AM

e01n

Posts: 1472
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO: Note: Is this actually a thread about the sometimes supposed differences between POV between random Dominants and submissives? (or did you manage to wade through the Mother Thersa thread on this message board, perchance)? yuk yuk.(and I am just teasing).

And even though you make the joke... yes, that's my point.

Mercifully, Mother Teresa has nothing to do with it... at this time.

(in reply to SusanofO)

Profile

Post #: 18

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:55:37 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Everything is something, therefore even nothing must be something, therefore nothing doesnt exist....

Sure Ghita, tell that to a Black Hole!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to GhitaAmati)

Profile

Post #: 19

RE: For your consideration - 8/31/2007 6:57:12 AM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

e01n: Thanks. If that's your point, I believe I agree (I don't think I will ever make myself go through a thread like the one I mentioned again.....but - 'ya know what "they" say - never say never..)

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/31/2007 7:11:50 AM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to e01n)

Profile

Post #: 20