Thread: G to the De-tox
View Single Post
Unread 28 Jul 2008, 16:38   #24
Prover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 35
Prover is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these parts
Re: G to the De-tox

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
no. what's pretty clear is that you are trying to categorise everything as some tangential offshoot of love/truth/god. that isn't pluralism, that's reductionism.
How is it possible not to categorize at some point? If you give no meaning to the term pluralism (which is itself a category), then I would say reductionism is really the endless deconstruction of ideas (that you are exhibiting). Again, you avoid some of my earlier remarks on this account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
did you miss the bit where i asked you to define what they meant?
You haven't exhibited any attempt to give meaning to my statements with your destructive tendency. Meaning is essentially a subjective idea. I'm in the middle of trying to 'define' it, can you not see? I would suggest, rather than nit-picking points and stretching out this thread too long, you synthesize a response into a complete paragraph. (To meet me halfway here). That's how people begin to understand things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
Please can you use one of the earlier listed phenomena to help explain via example what it is you mean. If i may pick one off the list, i would rather quantum mechanics.
If you were at all familiar with quantum mechanics, you would know about its subjective nature given that light behaves as both a wave and a particle. That duality (I like to call it a paradox) is at the physical limits for advancement in science, so probability is used (as 4D-thinking) to bridge this gap in describing nature. (This is also relevantly adopted by meteorologists who are coming to terms with chaos theory in weather predictions). When we go beyond this paradox, we get into purely theoretical grounds. You might escape this paradox by invoking super-strings and a many-worlds hypothesis (so to be physically "objective"), but I would say that that's an infinite reduction in itself, where as my hypothesis is more of a regression. What makes your reduction any better than my more-so regressive approach? Looking in retrospect (at history), we see that our understanding has come from a combination of both these techniques.

Last edited by Prover; 28 Jul 2008 at 17:41.
Prover is offline   Reply With Quote