Absolute certainty

@Anthrobus,

would it be a priori inductive for the IMAGE to deduce in a posteriori manner that there must be an IMAGER.

That deduction would, I suppose, be inductive a posteriori; judging the cause by the effect. The problem lies in the concept of absolute darkness, as it is NOT a cause of an effect, it is a best a poor description of a concept, at worst nonsense, but certainly not an object of experience. Then the image decides that there is a projector( I prefer this term as imager is not a word in the English language) inductively a posteriori. This induction is speculative.

ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, is not a spacial object. It is syntax applied to object, it has an embedded process of reduction that recurs ad infinitum, removing the aspect of light, hence energy, mass ect, from the mental object. Hence we are removing from the object everything which could define it, hence the object becomes nothing, hence nothing is absolute darkness, so the question of the existence of absolute darkness boils down to the much older question of the existence of nothing.

To ask whether or not an absolute exists is in effect the same question as whether or not there exists any object that has the property of being infinite in any sense of the word. Absolutes are not inductive a posteriori, but are rather syntax-objects which are manifest as infinite recursive processes applied to an initial state. We consider here, absolute darkness. No one has experienced absolute darkness, as everyone has energy and thus a form of light. We have all experienced relative darkness which gives us our recursive process and initial state. The initial state is simply any scenario involving light to which our recursive process(the removal of light) can be applied to.

Only relative darkness can be considered independent of the recursive process as an object in and of itself.

In this sense, it would be a posteriori inductive that by the same token that in mathematics, say, we can draw a LIMIT to a process, by the same token, there could be a limit which we cannot draw, yet it exists, and something beyond that limit which is beyond us. But is it not nonsense to speak of something that cannot be conceived by definition? To speak of something that has no 'sense', something that we cannot consider? We again speak of limits relative to something. We observe limits in concepts, in set theory, in mathematics, we can see a sequence and we know that it will only reach a certain point and never go beyond it, but this is because we draw the line and set it up to be the case that the limit is finite and that it reaches toward a definite object, be it a number or something else. When we consider something with no limit, say, a number sequence which approaches infinity, like counting 1,2,3,4...10000.....ect we do not draw a line via an object such as 1,000,000,000,000, as by definition that object would be passed at some point in the sequence, so it is a potential initial state. NO POTENTIAL INITIAL STATE OF A GIVEN SEQUENCE CAN BE CHOSEN AS ITS LIMIT. As such, since all objects are necessarily potential states for some recursive process, they are not candidates for absolutes. But that there are limits to recursive sequences indicates the need for objects that are absolute relative to a sequence. So each object can be both a relative absolute and an initial state!

It follows that each object must be absolute only relative to a sequence, so that no absolute which is not also an initial state is an object independent of syntax. So every absolute is syntactic, thus it does not 'exist' in the sense that it has 'substance', but only in the sense that it denotes a process with no object as its limit. Thus ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, is not an object, and as such it has no substance. It does, however, exist, but only as something which denotes a process with no object at its limit.

@Stormalv,

FIRST OFF LET ME SAY THIS: the word IMAGER does exist, and on account of the fact that I have just invented it, and also on account of the fact that you have understood its meaning. I think though that you are suggesting here that something could be both INDIVISIBLE and UNDIVIDED, and both DIVISIBLE and DIVIDED, and at one and the same time, and I have to ask can that ever be true. You suggest that there is a SOMETHING that is a process, and yet has no SUBSTANCE, and that an infinite recursive process can be applied to an initial state, but, and just such a process would be in motion, and assuredly could never be considered to have achieved rest. You are therefore talking about something other that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, which does not derive its own non-identity from anothers identity: it is its own integrous thing. The question is what THING. Best to think of it as at rest, and therefore FINITE, the infinite brings with it untold logical problems...the argument fails on the notion of the INFINITE I think...we can think of it as FINITE, and at rest but only intuitively...we cannot assert it as such...

@Anthrobus,

I said that imager does not exist in the english language, and it doesn't. It exists in a language between you, me and anyone else who reads the post and understands the meaning of it. I was simply advocating the use of a long established word in lieu of this new one.

I am, I think, considering something which is both in a possible state and of a possible state, but so are all things. That an object is in a state is testament to the possibility of that state being applied to the object. That the object is potentially in the given state, does not interfere with the object actually being in that state. The statement, 'this divisible square is divided is redundant', but correct. I do not think, however, that this applies to what I have said. I think that we may be misunderstanding one another.

Let me say that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS cannot be anything beyond relative darkness via my above definition, without being in the form of syntax(namely a recursive process) applied to an object. This is what I am asserting.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

I said that imager does not exist in the english language, and it doesn't. It exists in a language between you, me and anyone else who reads the post and understands the meaning of it. I was simply advocating the use of a long established word in lieu of this new one.

I am, I think, considering something which is both in a possible state and of a possible state, but so are all things. That an object is in a state is testament to the possibility of that state being applied to the object. That the object is potentially in the given state, does not interfere with the object actually being in that state. The statement, 'this divisible square is divided is redundant', but correct. I do not think, however, that this applies to what I have said. I think that we may be misunderstanding one another.

Let me say that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS cannot be anything beyond relative darkness via my above definition, without being in the form of syntax(namely a recursive process) applied to an object. This is what I am asserting.

ZETETIC: There is a problem here, and in that, whereas the ABSOLUTENESS of LIGHT resides in its speed, and which is a constant, and if then we assert that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS is not NOTHING, then the ABSOLUTENESS of DARKNESS must reside in its non-speed, and which is a constant aswell, or shall we assert that the ABSOLUTENESS of LIGHT exists, and but and that the ABSOLUTENESS of DARKNESS does not exist: that there is an opposite {LIGHT}, and that has no EQUAL AND EXACT OPPOSITE {DARK}...also, and would you clarify the difference between the potential state and the actual state: assuredly they must be DIFFERENT states...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

ZETETIC: There is a problem here, and in that, whereas the ABSOLUTENESS of LIGHT resides in its speed, and which is a constant, and if then we assert that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS is not NOTHING, then the ABSOLUTENESS of DARKNESS must reside in its non-speed, and which is a constant aswell, or shall we assert that the ABSOLUTENESS of LIGHT exists, and but and that the ABSOLUTENESS of DARKNESS does not exist: that there is an opposite, and that has no EQUAL AND EXACT OPPOSITE...

Anthrobus, I don't mean to butt in or sound insulting, but I truly am having a hard time conceptualizing your writing. Some of your sentences tend to run on, and I'm left with ambiguity.

I know I'm not whom you are responding too, but I'm still interested in the conversation, so can you please try to simplify what it is you're trying to articulate?

@Stormalv,

ZETHERIN: if there is an absolute LIGHT, then there must be an absolute DARK, and if, in fact the absoluteness of LIGHT resides in its SPEED, well then the absoluteness of DARK must reside in its NON-SPEED: that is the KERNEL of what I am saying here...unless we deny completely the EXISTENCE of ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, but if we do, well then must we not deny the EXISTENCE of ABSOLUTE LIGHT..The LIGHT must therefore be IN MOTION, whereas the DARKNESS must therefore be AT REST...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

ZETHERIN: if there is an absolute LIGHT, then there must be an absolute DARK, and if, in fact the absoluteness of LIGHT resides in its SPEED, well then the absoluteness of DARK must reside in its NON-SPEED: that is the KERNEL of what I am saying here...unless we deny completly the EXISTENCE of ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, but if we do, well then must we not deny the EXISTENCE of ABSOLUTE LIGHT..The LIGHT must therefore be IN MOTION, whereas the DARKNESS must therefore be AT REST...

I don't think we can deny completely the existence of absolute darkness, literally that is, I understand that notionally anything can exist. It's very possible that absolute darkness may exist at the eye of a blackhole - This gravitational vortex swallows everything, including electromagnetic radiation, after falling past the event horizon. The event horizon is a boundary in spacetime, an area surrounding a blackhole, inside which events cannot affect an outside observer. Light emitted from inside the horizon can never reach the observer, and anything that passes through the horizon from the observer's side disappears. Again, we may be able to emulate much of this through quantum research.

With that said, Absolute Lightness would be equally unobservable, as we need degree in order to discern existence. This is a very good point you are making. I haven't considered absolute light before, so I do appreciate your probe in critical thinking. Maybe the answer to the age old question, "What happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force?" is Existence.

Event horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Stormalv,

THERE IS THAT CONTENTION OF THE ANCIENTS: the similarity of equal and exact opposites. If ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS has absolute speed, then it appears as being AT REST, and if ABSOLUTE DARKNESS has absolute non-speed, then it non-appears as being IN MOTION. We know the first assumption to be TRUE, but we assume the second to be TRUE. This is what makes ABSOLUTE DARKNESS so difficult to judge {everything that we contend to prove about it must be considered as being UNTRUE}. The existence or non-existence of the UNICORN{PHAEDRUS} has dogged the whole of PHILOSOPHY since its very inception. If light and substance are inextricably allied, and as ZETETIC contends that they are, then everything we think of must exist as substance somewhere, but if light and substance are not inextricably allied, then everything we think of must not exist as substance somewhere...is ABSOLUTE DARKNESS completely misunderstood, and in that, it must be the most positive of energies, and ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS, the most negative of energies. For if such is not the case: why then do we revolve around BLACK HOLES, and they not revolve around us?...is not ABSOLUTE DARKNESS the very SUBSTANCE itself, and ABSOLUTE LIGHT the very APPEARANCE itself?...and is not the EVENT HORIZON the very separation of SUBSTANCE and APPEARANCE, and of which we speak...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

If light and substance are inextricably allied, and as ZETETIC contends that they are, then everything we think of must exist as substance somewhere, but if light and substance are not inextricably allied, then everything we think of must not exist as substance somewhere

I think this is where I begin to falter in your understanding. Even if light and substance are inextricably allied, why do you conclude that everything we think of must exist as substance somewhere? Why can it not be that an idea exists simply in the confines of our mind, our consciousness; why does the idea have to be extrapolated out to substance? (using the definition of substance: That which has mass and occupies space; matter.)

If, however, you are choosing to use a broader definition: something that has separate or independent existence, the meaning or gist. Then it's quite easy to conclude, yes, everything that has ever conjured does exist somewhere, if only in our independent minds. Since we can never see the light emit from the event horizon, we can never conjure it's existence. We can picture and infer what it *may* look like from past conjurations, but we do not know. I wouldn't consider it a seperation of appearance and substance, but rather a non-substance, regardless of definition. In other words, it cannot exist to us, as we cannot observe. To quote you from another thread: "The non-existent cannot be spoken of, the existence can be spoken of".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think this is where I begin to falter in your understanding. Even if light and substance are inextricably allied, why do you conclude that everything we think of must exist as substance somewhere? Why can it not be that an idea exists simply in the confines of our mind, our consciousness; why does the idea have to be extrapolated out to substance? (using the definition of substance: That which has mass and occupies space; matter.)

If, however, you are choosing to use a broader definition: something that has separate or independent existence, the meaning or gist. Then it's quite easy to conclude, yes, everything that has ever conjured does exist somewhere, if only in our independent minds. Since we can never see the light emit from the event horizon, we can never conjure it's existence. We can picture and infer what it *may* look like from past conjurations, but we do not know. I wouldn't consider it a seperation of appearance and substance, but rather a non-substance, regardless of definition. In other words, it cannot exist to us, as we cannot observe. To quote you from another thread: "The non-existent cannot be spoken of, the existence can be spoken of".

THEN OUR GALAXY: revolves around a NON-SUBSTANCE...can this be true?...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

THEN OUR GALAXY: revolves around a NON-SUBSTANCE...can this be true?...

It could be true, but my gut tells me I'm misunderstanding existence entirely. I'm drawing conclusions through contextual lenses that I observe; quite literally, I'm defining existence through my experience with existence. There's no way I can transcend *this* and draw an objective conclusion. Because of this, it appears any conception could be innately flawed.

@Zetherin,

I thought you were being a bit more abstract.

I was speaking of absolute darkness as a potential, more mathematically than physically. My conception of absolute darkness is nothingness, or rather, something with everything removed from it. My conception of light is that of energy and matter, ect, everything which can be sensed.

An initial state is a picture of a state of affairs, a room, a woodland area, ect. Anything can be an initial state so long as something is present in the picture. Absolute darkness, as I conceive of it, is a more abstract entity in that it cannot have anything, whether we know about it or not. We presume that absolute darkness precludes the possibility of anything being in our picture of it. A black hole is a poor example, and so is any physical example as we have the stipulation which is not physical that there must be nothing there. In the specific case of a black hole, this is absolutely false, gamma radiation, black matter, ect objects which might be unknown to us are all present. The very gravitational field of the black hole is problematic. We cannot consider a specific example as one cannot exist empirically. I feel that all in all, you are making this problem far too physical and empirical.

The recursive syntax is whatever mechanics lead point in our desired direction without the process approaching a relative limit, that is, we cannot only remove everything in smaller and smaller amounts to the point that we just end up with a dark room or a black hole ect, this is because absolute darkness is not being considered as a physical state, but rather an ideal in that it can never be reached by definition, but it can be approached...

When I speak of applying recursive syntax to an initial state, I am speaking of the process by which we approach the ideal we choose.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

I thought you were being a bit more abstract.

I was speaking of absolute darkness as a potential, more mathematically than physically. My conception of absolute darkness is nothingness, or rather, something with everything removed from it. My conception of light is that of energy and matter, ect, everything which can be sensed.

An initial state is a picture of a state of affairs, a room, a woodland area, ect. Anything can be an initial state so long as something is present in the picture. Absolute darkness, as I conceive of it, is a more abstract entity in that it cannot have anything, whether we know about it or not. We presume that absolute darkness precludes the possibility of anything being in our picture of it. A black hole is a poor example, and so is any physical example as we have the stipulation which is not physical that there must be nothing there. In the specific case of a black hole, this is absolutely false, gamma radiation, black matter, ect objects which might be unknown to us are all present. The very gravitational field of the black hole is problematic. We cannot consider a specific example as one cannot exist empirically. I feel that all in all, you are making this problem far too physical and empirical.

The recursive syntax is whatever mechanics lead point in our desired direction without the process approaching a relative limit, that is, we cannot only remove everything in smaller and smaller amounts to the point that we just end up with a dark room or a black hole ect, this is because absolute darkness is not being considered as a physical state, but rather an ideal in that it can never be reached by definition, but it can be approached...

When I speak of applying recursive syntax to an initial state, I am speaking of the process by which we approach the ideal we choose.

It wasn't the black hole itself that I was forcing as empirical ground for a notion of absolute darkness, but instead, everything past the event horizon, which is not something that we can observe. As no light can escape, there is no appearance to us (That I know of; I only go off of what I read concerning physics). Though the notion of "nothing" may be infinitely more abstract (and I even note in other threads "nothing" is not part of the dichotomy with "something"; to ask "What is nothing", is to render the question unanswerable), it's the best way I could rationalize it at this current time.

That's a great point about recursive syntax, and it's present in many abstract notions I speak. If we then conclude Absolute darkness and Absolute darkness are applied recursive syntax, ideals, then this discussion seems to be about over.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

It wasn't the black hole itself that I was forcing as empirical ground for a notion of absolute darkness, but instead, everything past the event horizon, which is not something that we can observe. As no light can escape, there is no appearance to us (That I know of; I only go off of what I read concerning physics). Though the notion of "nothing" may be infinitely more abstract (and I even note in other threads "nothing" is not part of the dichotomy with "something"; to ask "What is nothing", is to render the question unanswerable), it's the best way I could rationalize it at this current time.

That's a great point about recursive syntax, and it's present in many abstract notions I speak. If we then conclude Absolute darkness and Absolute darkness are applied recursive syntax, ideals, then this discussion seems to be about over.

NOT QUITE: If we establish ABSOLUTE DARKNESS as ABSOLUTE, we can then declare it to be INDIVISIBLE and UNDIVIDED, and if we establish ABSOLUTE LIGHT as ABSOLUTE, we can then declare it to be INDIVISIBLE and UNDIVIDED. We therefore are beholden to dual INDIVISIBLE POINTS, and which if the both were either ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, or ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS, could or would CANCEL each other out. It is not possible to have dual INDIVISIBLE POINTS, and on account of the fact that in order to exist both could or would have to be DIVISIBLE and DIVIDED. ABSOLUTE DARKNESS, and ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS complement each other, and indicate the possibility of synthesis to the CENTRE, of ONENESS thereof. It follows therefore that ABSOLUTE DARKNESS and ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS are two sides to the one coin: the question being just exactly what the coin is. ABSOLUTE DARKNESS must be the SUBSTANCE of BEING, whereas ABSOLUTE LIGHTNESS must be the APPEARANCE of BEING, existing under some form of PARALLAX, but essentially one and the same...

@Stormalv,

I would think that if there is no god then there is no truth. The "Truth" is the "Word". Nietzsche warned it would take hundreds of years for this to sink in! So what did Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Deleuze and Derrida think of the "Word"? God is Truth! If you believe in God Then you believe in the spirit world. The spirit world is Superstition by definition. But atheists take heed for you also "believe in Truth".

@goethe10,

Have you been reading the discussion thus far? Wittgenstein has been specifically cited a few times by myself. To quote phrases is to speak and say nothing. Say your own words on this matter, dig into the abstract notions we have worked to put forward.

Zetherin, what I said was more directed towards ANTHROBUS, I felt that his take on ABSOLUTE DARKNESS was very different from my own.

ANTHROBUS: My conception of ABSOLUTE LIGHT and ABSOLUTE DARKNESS was more along the lines of an area that is totally dense and one that is totally void, so absolute being and absolute nonbeing respectively.

If we are speaking more metaphorically about appearance and substance, I feel that we have had an idealogical disconnect, hence the confusion.

I would say that substance and appearance are linked, but interpretation of appearance can lead to a assignment to the wrong substance or memory of a substance in the following way: A hallucination has substance as there is a substance in the brain which triggers it, a mechanism or chemical. The assignment of the hallucination to a non mental object is a false assignment, but substance and appearance are both present. I would say that substance is the potential of appearence. An object can appear and interact with the senses in various ways, the set of all possible ways an object can appear is the substance.

@Stormalv,

I went back about 20 posts or so and all I read was absolute "non-sense"! Wittgenstein would agree but he might add that it was important "non-sense". But non-sense no less. I will not bother you anymore.

@goethe10,

Goethe, feel free to contribute, its just that I am intent on resolving this problem to at least the degree that we understand what is being considered and why we can or cannot answer the question being asked(whether or not it is non-sense).

@goethe10,

goethe10 wrote:

I would think that if there is no god then there is no truth. The "Truth" is the "Word". Nietzsche warned it would take hundreds of years for this to sink in! So what did Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Deleuze and Derrida think of the "Word"? God is Truth! If you believe in God Then you believe in the spirit world. The spirit world is Superstition by definition. But atheists take heed for you also "believe in Truth".

Excuse me, but is this what everyone is searching for?
The Absolute Certainty Equations

=============================================

Philosophy Equation:
Truth is God is Everything,
And: Everything includes Us.
And also: Us is you and Me
So: Everything is All
Or: All is Same
Or: Same is Equal
Or: Equal is =
Or: = is One
Or: Truth is =
Or: = is Truth
Or : Truth Is
Or: Is = The Solution, The Cure, Universe, Unity, Truth, Certainty, Justice, Freedom, Absolute, God, Everything, Humanity, Nature, All, Same, Is, One.

=============================================

Physics Equation:
E = MC2 Einstein came this close!
E = MC
E = M
= Is The Solution, The Cure, Universe, Unity, Truth, Certainty, Justice, Freedom, Absolute, God, Everything, Humanity, Nature, All, Same, Is, One.

=============================================

Religion Equation:
God Is Everything
Everything = One
= Is

=============================================

Everything Equation:
Philosophy = Is Physics = Is Religion = Is You = Is Me

=============================================

WOW!!!

= Is
=
MJA

More:
Reduce your own equations and you'll find the simple truth and write it too.
=

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. Buddha

@MJA,

Very nice, Alan Watts, but we are not looking for an overarching answer, we are looking for a specific one. Buddhist mysticism and semi-cryptic messages aren't really furthering the discussion, as wise as they may be. We aren't necessarily looking for truth, but rather engaging in an analytic process, to better understand a specific thing at least to the superficial extent that it suits us.

Philosophy Forum

Absolute certainty

Quick Links

My Account

able2know