Symbols are deities

[Hans Sepp]

I hate infinities, they always encourage thinking that is ripe for inconsistencies.

To explain this matter more accessibly, this post of mine could help you. If you strictly limit the words to the definitions, you can talk about only small portions of the world and you should shut up about things like ethics, aesthetics, &c. Because you made the words and their meanings 1-1.

Your point about the limits of language actually brings to mind Nietzsche's positive theory of language. Nietzsche's 'linguistics optics' as I call it personally, argues that words do not have fixed, objective meanings, but that each person gives their own meaning to each word based on their personal experience and psychological state. To understand someone means we have to translate their private lexicon. That also means that there's no wrong interpretation; if we take it to its logical conclusion, everyone is essentially saying something true.

So I will use Nietzsche's 'linguistics optics' to interpret your position. When you say 'everything is an idea' and matter is just 'ideas restricted by spacetime' that means you are using the word 'idea' in a way that maps to something much broader than the traditional philosophical concept. For you, 'idea' seems to encompass not just mental representations but also the fundamental structure or essence of things. In your lexicon, 'idea' stands for the underlying reality behind all phenomena.

This interpretation fits with your earlier statement that symbols are as real as your hands. You are suggesting that the world is made up of these 'ideas' in a very literal sense - not just mental constructs but the building blocks of existence itself. Matter is simply a special case where these ideas are constrained by physical laws (spacetime) - I perfectly accept that idea.

But translating the terms doesn't solve the structural problem with your position. The issue is not the specific meanings of your words, but the coherence of the system itself. The issue is that your definitions collapse vital, mechanical distinctions, therefore they're useless for me.

My hand (an idea restricted by spacetime) can physically pull a lever, type or write words on a screen. The number 3, or a symbol (an idea not restricted by spacetime), cannot do any of those things. If your linguistic system claims all these things are essentially the same, hasn't your lexicon made itself useless for explaining actual, physical causality?

[Thricegreat]

I hate infinities, they always encourage thinking that is ripe for inconsistencies.

To explain this matter more accessibly, this post of mine could help you. If you strictly limit the words to the definitions, you can talk about only small portions of the world and you should shut up about things like ethics, aesthetics, &c. Because you made the words and their meanings 1-1.

Your point about the limits of language actually brings to mind Nietzsche's positive theory of language. Nietzsche's 'linguistics optics' as I call it personally, argues that words do not have fixed, objective meanings, but that each person gives their own meaning to each word based on their personal experience and psychological state. To understand someone means we have to translate their private lexicon. That also means that there's no wrong interpretation; if we take it to its logical conclusion, everyone is essentially saying something true.

So I will use Nietzsche's 'linguistics optics' to interpret your position. When you say 'everything is an idea' and matter is just 'ideas restricted by spacetime' that means you are using the word 'idea' in a way that maps to something much broader than the traditional philosophical concept. For you, 'idea' seems to encompass not just mental representations but also the fundamental structure or essence of things. In your lexicon, 'idea' stands for the underlying reality behind all phenomena.

This interpretation fits with your earlier statement that symbols are as real as your hands. You are suggesting that the world is made up of these 'ideas' in a very literal sense - not just mental constructs but the building blocks of existence itself. Matter is simply a special case where these ideas are constrained by physical laws (spacetime) - I perfectly accept that idea.

But translating the terms doesn't solve the structural problem with your position. The issue is not the specific meanings of your words, but the coherence of the system itself. The issue is that your definitions collapse vital, mechanical distinctions, therefore they're useless for me.

My hand (an idea restricted by spacetime) can physically pull a lever, type or write words on a screen. The number 3, or a symbol (an idea not restricted by spacetime), cannot do any of those things. If your linguistic system claims all these things are essentially the same, hasn't your lexicon made itself useless for explaining actual, physical causality?

First of all, "Don't say, show". I don't think words are necessarily for arguing. And for me what really matters for knowledge is the screen resolution of that showing. It doesn't need to be words in the first place. Other things like pictures, music, &c. are also totally fine.

And this is just a personal matter, but I don't think in words. I translate my ideas into words simply to communicate with others. And I always think that words suck. One thing which especially sucks is that I always have to follow a socially already determined ruleset.

On your example of hands and 3, you took wrong things to compare. What you should take are "3" in the mathematical world and "3" as in 3 chairs.

[Hans Sepp]

First of all, "Don't say, show". I don't think words are necessarily for arguing. And for me what really matters for knowledge is the screen resolution of that showing. It doesn't need to be words in the first place. Other things like pictures, music, &c. are also totally fine.

The problem is not with what you show, but with what you claim that showing means.

And this is just a personal matter, but I don't think in words. I translate my ideas into words simply to communicate with others. And I always think that words suck. One thing which especially sucks is that I always have to follow a socially already determined ruleset

Then you're not actually having a conversation with me, you're just projecting your private experience onto a shared space.

On your example of hands and 3, you took wrong things to compare. What you should take are "3" in the mathematical world and "3" as in 3 chairs.

I don't find the abstract taxonomy useful when the issue is the mechanical problem. I held you to the exact things you claimed were equivalent - the difference between physical actions (like pulling a lever) and abstract symbols (like the number 3). Can your framework explain the difference at all?

[Thricegreat]

On your example of hands and 3, you took wrong things to compare. What you should take are "3" in the mathematical world and "3" as in 3 chairs.

I don't find the abstract taxonomy useful when the issue is the mechanical problem. I held you to the exact things you claimed were equivalent - the difference between physical actions (like pulling a lever) and abstract symbols (like the number 3). Can your framework explain the difference at all?

Pythagorean tuning.

[Hans Sepp]

Pythagorean tuning.

Elaborate? Is the '3' hitting a physical lever on a piano to produce a certain soundwave?

[Thricegreat]

Pythagorean tuning.

Elaborate? Is the '3' hitting a physical lever on a piano to produce a certain soundwave?

Pythagoreans argued that listening to music is not really listening to sounds. They argued that it is listening to numbers that have been existing before the physical world and those numbers "purify your soul". Which I guess means giving certain feelings and catharsis. For example minor chords (numerical ratios) give you darker feeling than major chords.

[Hans Sepp]

Pythagoreans argued that listening to music is not really listening to sounds. They argued that it is listening to numbers that have been existing before the physical world and those numbers "purify your soul". Which I guess means giving certain feelings and catharsis. For example minor chords (numerical ratios) give you darker feeling than major chords.

What if I just sent you to space, can you listen to these numbers there?

[Thricegreat]

Pythagoreans argued that listening to music is not really listening to sounds. They argued that it is listening to numbers that have been existing before the physical world and those numbers "purify your soul". Which I guess means giving certain feelings and catharsis. For example minor chords (numerical ratios) give you darker feeling than major chords.

What if I just sent you to space, can you listen to these numbers there?

They even argued Musica Universalis.

[Hans Sepp]

They even argued Musica Universalis.

The wiki article itself states that it is inaudible. You cannot hear it with your ears, so you must be talking about some kind of mystical or metaphysical concept. In that case, your appeal is completely irrelevant to the argument about physical causality.

[Thricegreat]

They even argued Musica Universalis.

The wiki article itself states that it is inaudible. You cannot hear it with your ears, so you must be talking about some kind of mystical or metaphysical concept. In that case, your appeal is completely irrelevant to the argument about physical causality.

Of course yourself cannot hear but the point is that planets follow some musical orders. Kepler was able to find some astronomical laws when he studied it.

If this is not enough, I don't have more things to say and the conversation is over.