Observer-participancy

#1
Ostronomos Offline
[By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level,...

See http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/...092902.pdf

size=large]Physics gives rise to observer-participancy, observer-participancy gives rise to information, information gives rise to Physics. A "closed loop". The CTMU makes no distinction between matter and information. "Concrete matter now vies with abstract information abstractly representing matter".[/size]
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
That's called circular reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.
Reply
#3
Ostronomos Offline
(Jul 21, 2021 04:47 PM)Syne Wrote: That's called circular reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.

Please point out the flaw in the argument rather than appealing to popularity.

You are the universe creating itself by observing itself. The physical body and matter appears to you (where physical laws act as restrictions on state from the nothing of which things are) and it is created by your conscious viewing and perceiving.
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
Wow, you don't even understand logical fallacies enough to tell one from another. The flaw in the argument is that it's circular, as you freely admit. That is a logical fallacy that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with any appeal to popularity. What, did you Google "logical fallacy" and just regurgitate one, hoping you'd sound smart? That failed miserably, as you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about and just getting defensive in the most ignorant way possible (tu quoque).

Not that I think you're capable of understanding basic logic, but circular reasoning must assume the thing instead of prove it...and then only add steps to obscure the fact that it's really just a bare assertion, with no reasoning at all.

And the saddest part of me having to tell you this is that I'm a theist who understands and agrees with "the nothing of which things are." I'm just smart enough to know that circular arguments prove nothing and convince no one...except maybe your fellow pot smokers.
Reply
#5
Zinjanthropos Offline
Ostro just not famous enough to have his blather studied. He’s not the first philosophical junkie, one who believes drug induced altered states are the portal to enlightenment. Here’s a short list but I’m thinking all of them may have plenty of company

https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/5-...took-drugs

One reason why I have trouble taking philosophy seriously is knowing how f**ked up some are/were. A black eye for philosophy, the words of the shit-faced taken as wisdom. Jeez, before MJ became legalized it must have been a crime for Ostro to philosophize and if his stash ain’t govt legal then he’s still breaking the law philosophizing.....sorry, just never thought of it like that before Big Grin
Reply
#6
Syne Offline
Yeah, Timothy Leary, et al., started a trend of pseudo-intellectual, substance-fueled philosophizing. Those have little to nothing to do with serious philosophy. Ostro is a groupie to the likes of them, equally failing to understand simple philosophy and simple physics/science for himself, much like people who join cults.

Philosophy is far broader than the relatively few drug-addled contributions, and their ideas had to withstand the criticism of others to gain any agreement or prominence.
Reply
#7
Ostronomos Offline
(Jul 21, 2021 05:21 PM)Syne Wrote: Wow, you don't even understand logical fallacies enough to tell one from another. The flaw in the argument is that it's circular, as you freely admit. That is a logical fallacy that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with any appeal to popularity. What, did you Google "logical fallacy" and just regurgitate one, hoping you'd sound smart? That failed miserably, as you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about and just getting defensive in the most ignorant way possible (tu quoque).

Not that I think you're capable of understanding basic logic, but circular reasoning must assume the thing instead of prove it...and then only add steps to obscure the fact that it's really just a bare assertion, with no reasoning at all.

And the saddest part of me having to tell you this is that I'm a theist who understands and agrees with "the nothing of which things are." I'm just smart enough to know that circular arguments prove nothing and convince no one...except maybe your fellow pot smokers.

It is not a bare assertion you fool. There is reasoning behind my argument. 


[Image: 315030_1_En_14_Fig1_HTML.png]

[Image: 315030_1_En_14_Fig1_HTML.png]




From: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100...03633-1_14

The human mind has been employed as a tool to understand itself. Calling this a circular argument is like saying that the argument for closed loops are a logical fallacy. Which was not noted by me but by John Wheeler.
Reply
#8
Syne Offline
^ It is a bare assertion, because every loop reduces to one. If A then B and if B then A (your diagram with arrows pointing both ways between them), then A is equivalent to B and one is only used to obfuscate the bare assertion of the other. Since each pair reduces to a bare assertion, the whole argument does as well. At no point have you made an argument. You've only strung together a series of assertions. Otherwise, you could give evidence for one assertion, rather than having to resort to more assertions. And citing Wheeler, rather than any of his actual scientific achievements, is an appeal to authority. You really can't help but make logical fallacies in every post.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Enactivism and our observer-dependent reality Magical Realist 2 99 Sep 16, 2020 07:43 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)