Writing There isn't a point to physics if they can be "broken".

[OatMush]

I think you need to work on your communication skills...

 

[QuercusMalus]

'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People'
By Avakrael.

Well, they do say write what you know....

 

[Kalliel]

Who let bro cook?

 

[Avakrael]

Umu.

 

[RepresentingEnvy]

Translation: everything is always changing. Nothing ever stays the same.

-Heraclitus

Everything always stays the same. Nothing ever changes.

-Parmenides

Definition is the immovable mover progressively solving chaos via order.

-Socrates & Aristotle (paraphrase)

Sigh, you need not know everything to live: but you at least must know enough. And the requirements of learning increase alongside the problems that need solving as a growing sentient being.

Such is the frame of Life's painting.

Yet all of the knowledge you possess you forgot to share intelligibly

 

[Ran-Ron]

 

[RepresentingEnvy]

I mean, its fine if your character makes the mistake of thinking physics can be broken.
Mistakes are made in life.
But as the story teller, it is definitely useful to know that it is indeed a mistake.

Physics is a principle concept which indicates the basic causal relationship(s) between physical phenomena.
This says that force, mass, gravity, energy, density, state changes, etcetera have a fundamental nature; this root identity is a grasp on the laws of existence itself, not just in an isolated place.

But physics are not obstacles which you must overcome, but rather the means itself to reach your unique goals.

Solely by understanding principles of how things operate no matter where you are, can you figure out how to apply that certainty to unique contexts where those principles you have learned are placed in a template that you haven't quite experienced yet.

The principles you have comprehended and to the extent that you did, are the guide to dealing with unknowns which require sussing.

Reason generates confidence from a real connection to the anchors (laws) that it identifies.

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The milestones of progress that help you deal with future challenges are the universal principles acquired from experiencing their inevitable effect(s).

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

And if nature has the fickle nonintelligibility of lacking any eternal principles of causality, then what is the value of existence exactly?

Translated:
It's okay if your character thinks physics can be broken because the same mistake is made in real life. But as a storyteller, don't break physics.

No.

Physics exists and affects the world and universe. They are the laws of existence.

True. Physics is real.

Physics is the means to reach your goals.

If you are writing sci-fi or something. Or if you are boring.

By figuring out how things work, you can apply it.

Clearly not.

You can suss out unknowns by understanding principles.

No.

Reason generates confidence from a real connection to the anchors (laws) that it identifies.

Sure. This might be the only decent thing you said. If a story has a logic (contained in the story), it should keep to that logic it made. But it doesn't have to be based on real laws because that is lame.

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The milestones of progress that help you deal with future challenges are the universal principles acquired from experiencing their inevitable effect(s).

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

I don't feel like trying to translate this.

And if nature has the fickle nonintelligibility of lacking any eternal principles of causality, then what is the value of existence exactly?

The biggest irony of this whole thing is this one about unintelligible words. What is the value of the existence of this advice if we cannot figure out the cause of your words, silly?

 

[georgelee5786]

That is true, unless the world has different physics from ours

 

[Sola-sama]

Stop taking words out of my mouth. That's gay.

 

[Ran-Ron]

Stop taking words out of my mouth. That's gay.

 

[Detective_Quack]

There are degenerates here who write about people using their pps as swords with elemental aura , what sort of physics do you expect from them?

 

[Corty]

There are peeps here who write about people using their pps as swords with elemental aura , what sort of physics do you expect from them?

Calculating their ejaculation’s arc, strength and force.

 

[LilRora]

Oh, okay?

Magic and supernatural, by what I said, exist based on cause and effect like everything else.

The principle concepts relating to any physical phenomena are fundamental physics; the principal derivatives (temporary rules) are contextual physics specific to the unique application of principles in isolated instances.

You can never know everything?

What is everything to you exactly?

Everything necessary to achieve your ultimate goal in this babel is the inferior version of everything in the next; but they are still building upon each other in perfect hierarchical progression with every set of growing principle knowledge finished completely in each. Which is the sole way to the next ~ the climax of supreme achievement from whole comprehension.

I am aware that inductive philosophy receives endless doubts from others, but the content is here; in teaching others, I am sincere. Consider it if it interests you, maybe a seed will be deposited within you.

°~°

Alright, what you said now makes sense, and if I understood you correctly, I'm thinking very similarly. There is still something that hasn't been adressed though.

The issue I'm on about is not about the content of your post, but rather its form, because you've left a few things unsaid and assumed a couple other. The most notable of them is, either you said nothing about those rules being temporary in your first post, or I missed that fact even when I reread it (which would be problem with clearly conveying information).

As I understood it, in your first post, you postulated existence of certain unbreakable, absolute, objective, and unchanging principles that govern reality. That may be true, we don't know that, and I feel that's exactly the point - we are always learning more about those rules, always finding more smaller details and better general approximations, but we can never actually reach the end and know if those rules are actually unchanging or absolute; it's like a mathematical limit, where we can get infinitely close to the thing, but we cannot actually reach it.

The second important thing that irked me, was this:

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

And if nature has the fickle nonintelligibility of lacking any eternal principles of causality, then what is the value of existence exactly?

and how it suggests there is some objective value in existence that disappears if the existence and/or its principles are temporary.

I think it's got a lot to do with Kant's thing-in-itself, or with Platon's ideal world of which ours is only a reflection, but those are merely speculations we cannot truly grasp because that is against their very nature. We judge value as humans, in relation to us humans, and that is a subjective value, correct from our own limited perspective. However, that is the limit of that certainty, we are uncertain of anything that does not come directly from our own perception, and we can only make approximations of a thing's value from another being's perspective.

To truly know what is the value of existence that lacks eternal principles requires you are an entity that is capable of observing the change, and that, arguably, requires it is beyond physical laws. Until then, you can only speculate and make guesses based on your observations, which will get you closer to the answer as you learn more, however it will not allow you to be certain.

And, the thing that is most important to me here, you probably have a couple retorts in your mind, and you'd be right. I also made a couple of assumptions, for example I didn't mention that our own observation might be flawed or claimed that the thing-in-itself cannot be known. But I think that is exactly the point - what I said is what I consider to be correct, however, I don't know everything, so I cannot be certain I made no mistake. That, I think, is the most important aspect of inductive philosophy, and what irked me in your post that suggested what you said is definitely correct.

 

[APieceOfRock]

we're going goblin mode on physics todie

 

[Corty]

I mean, its fine if your character makes the mistake of thinking physics can be broken.
Mistakes are made in life.
But as the story teller, it is definitely useful to know that it is indeed a mistake.

Physics is a principle concept which indicates the basic causal relationship(s) between physical phenomena.
This says that force, mass, gravity, energy, density, state changes, etcetera have a fundamental nature; this root identity is a grasp on the laws of existence itself, not just in an isolated place.

But physics are not obstacles which you must overcome, but rather the means itself to reach your unique goals.

Solely by understanding principles of how things operate no matter where you are, can you figure out how to apply that certainty to unique contexts where those principles you have learned are placed in a template that you haven't quite experienced yet.

The principles you have comprehended and to the extent that you did, are the guide to dealing with unknowns which require sussing.

Reason generates confidence from a real connection to the anchors (laws) that it identifies.

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The milestones of progress that help you deal with future challenges are the universal principles acquired from experiencing their inevitable effect(s).

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

And if nature has the fickle nonintelligibility of lacking any eternal principles of causality, then what is the value of existence exactly?​

The argument presented underscores the foundational nature of physics, asserting its role as a guiding principle in understanding the fundamental relationships between physical phenomena. The idea that physics is not an obstacle but a means to achieve unique goals through the comprehension of universal principles is well-articulated. However, there is a hypothetical point embedded in the text that questions the value of existence if nature lacks eternal principles of causality.

In response to this, one might argue that the beauty of existence lies precisely in its complexity and dynamic nature. While physics provides a framework to understand certain aspects of the universe, the idea that nonintelligibility or the lack of eternal principles diminishes the value of existence may be challenged. Existence, in all its unpredictability, could be seen as an ever-evolving journey where the absence of eternal principles allows for continuous discovery and growth.

Moreover, the notion that nature must be obeyed to be commanded can be explored from a perspective that acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between humanity and the natural world. Instead of viewing nature as an entity to be commanded, one might argue for a harmonious coexistence, where understanding and respecting the principles of nature lead to a more sustainable and enriching human experience.

Ultimately, the value of existence may be found in the ongoing pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of the intricate tapestry of the universe, and the ability to adapt and thrive in a world that constantly presents new challenges and opportunities.

 

[Avakrael]

Alright, what you said now makes sense, and if I understood you correctly, I'm thinking very similarly. There is still something that hasn't been adressed though.

The issue I'm on about is not about the content of your post, but rather its form, because you've left a few things unsaid and assumed a couple other. The most notable of them is, either you said nothing about those rules being temporary in your first post, or I missed that fact even when I reread it (which would be problem with clearly conveying information).

As I understood it, in your first post, you postulated existence of certain unbreakable, absolute, objective, and unchanging principles that govern reality. That may be true, we don't know that, and I feel that's exactly the point - we are always learning more about those rules, always finding more smaller details and better general approximations, but we can never actually reach the end and know if those rules are actually unchanging or absolute; it's like a mathematical limit, where we can get infinitely close to the thing, but we cannot actually reach it.

The second important thing that irked me, was this:

and how it suggests there is some objective value in existence that disappears if the existence and/or its principles are temporary.

I think it's got a lot to do with Kant's thing-in-itself, or with Platon's ideal world of which ours is only a reflection, but those are merely speculations we cannot truly grasp because that is against their very nature. We judge value as humans, in relation to us humans, and that is a subjective value, correct from our own limited perspective. However, that is the limit of that certainty, we are uncertain of anything that does not come directly from our own perception, and we can only make approximations of a thing's value from another being's perspective.

To truly know what is the value of existence that lacks eternal principles requires you are an entity that is capable of observing the change, and that, arguably, requires it is beyond physical laws. Until then, you can only speculate and make guesses based on your observations, which will get you closer to the answer as you learn more, however it will not allow you to be certain.

And, the thing that is most important to me here, you probably have a couple retorts in your mind, and you'd be right. I also made a couple of assumptions, for example I didn't mention that our own observation might be flawed or claimed that the thing-in-itself cannot be known. But I think that is exactly the point - what I said is what I consider to be correct, however, I don't know everything, so I cannot be certain I made no mistake. That, I think, is the most important aspect of inductive philosophy, and what irked me in your post that suggested what you said is definitely correct.

Oh my god. Principles are absolute fundamental bases of existence.

Principals (Spelled Differently) are temporary rules that only work while digesting a certain unique context that will not exactly be experienced again.

You know, I emphasized the difference clearly with italics & paragraph-breaking?

You have also said something else.... but I am tired. I said so much with so much careful thought, and as soon as I mention 'temporary rules' you jump on it immediately sans fully embracing the context.

I don't wanna talk with you anymore... it hurts

The argument presented underscores the foundational nature of physics, asserting its role as a guiding principle in understanding the fundamental relationships between physical phenomena. The idea that physics is not an obstacle but a means to achieve unique goals through the comprehension of universal principles is well-articulated. However, there is a hypothetical point embedded in the text that questions the value of existence if nature lacks eternal principles of causality.

In response to this, one might argue that the beauty of existence lies precisely in its complexity and dynamic nature. While physics provides a framework to understand certain aspects of the universe, the idea that nonintelligibility or the lack of eternal principles diminishes the value of existence may be challenged. Existence, in all its unpredictability, could be seen as an ever-evolving journey where the absence of eternal principles allows for continuous discovery and growth.

Moreover, the notion that nature must be obeyed to be commanded can be explored from a perspective that acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between humanity and the natural world. Instead of viewing nature as an entity to be commanded, one might argue for a harmonious coexistence, where understanding and respecting the principles of nature lead to a more sustainable and enriching human experience.

Ultimately, the value of existence may be found in the ongoing pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of the intricate tapestry of the universe, and the ability to adapt and thrive in a world that constantly presents new challenges and opportunities.

If there isn't an ultimate frame, then there aren't any ultimate dynamic experiences that can be derived from it either.

The reality is: existence does indeed function intelligibly.

The proof is that we can grapple with ideas here while seeking the truth. If after obtaining the truth, it becomes obsolete completely where not even a fundamental concept spanning eternity has any purchase because of it (insignificant truth builds up into significant truth), then existence would really be just a nonabsolute gibberish land.

This reminds me of Kant: he said there was a Phenomenal World which meant that nothing could be discerned as really true | and a Noumenal World (similar to Plato's World Of Ideal Forms) where all the real truth existed _ Both worlds existed simultaneously in the place where we live, and being subject to both of them means that since they have equal influence we can never truly know anything despite truth being possible.

This is actually the most popular metaphysics in philosophy departments for the last century.

But the obvious hilarious nonsense in it is that it's very concept or reality itself requires you to accept it on faith in order to believe it; because according to it's content, truly understanding with certainty that this is how the world works is impossible. But since that is the case, why wouldn't I accept on reason that a philosophy that tries convincing you of something while acknowledging that convincing isn't actually possible is fucking garbage?

I really appreciate that you are giving me exactly the type of reasonable rebuttal that I hoped for & expected.

Regarding "respecting nature" rather than 'commanding' it, in elementary school I was taught that personification of not-a-person existents was nonlogical. However when I say command or obey I (& Francis Bacon) mean that harmony or balance with nature can only sensibly translate into acknowledging that it is not sentient but rather the fuel for growing individual sentience (though a sentient being may be born of the remnants eventually) so to be able to arrange it in the ideal way to advance your existence you must reflect the absolute(s) within yourself to their counterpart data in nature according to how it is situated in the unique context of that instance ~ then you may organize it in your image since you have related it's underpinnings with your own structure; the metaphor "commanding" is when you sort it, which is solely available after you "obey" or have sussed-out the kind of structure you are dealing with & extracting the relevant interesting data in order to form it into ideas. (I would tell you that ideas are physical, the most important fundamental of who you are, since there is no dichotomy between mental & physical states {the flesh × mind}.)

That which exists possesses identity.
To have identity means a form to make use of it.
A form is the actualizing state of a physical entity.
Hence, all is physical.

Physics = absolute fabric of reality.

Well, psychological motivations & content is the operating driver of whatever manifestations occur. (Though not-sentient existence must be comprehended from the perspective of being not-sentient {personification can only be metaphoric}.)

Nobody sensible ever said that esoteric & profound deep lasting meanings must be easy to grasp, but I can attest to the results: they are worth the effort.

In a very enjoyable story-format you can have access to a great density thereof if you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Just to mention that this is very relevant to making wonderful stories to experience.

 

[LilRora]

Oh my god. Principles are absolute fundamental bases of existence.

Principals (Spelled Differently) are temporary rules that only work while digesting a certain unique context that will not exactly be experienced again.

You know, I emphasized the difference clearly with italics & paragraph-breaking?

You have also said something else.... but I am tired. I said so much with so much careful thought, and as soon as I mention 'temporary rules' you jump on it immediately sans fully embracing the context.

I don't wanna talk with you anymore... it hurts

Now I'm confused, and I'm honestly pissed off at your dismissal.

Maybe I just don't get something you studied, but the way I see it, what you divide into principles and principal derivatives is what I broadly call principles, merely that your principle is global, and mine is local; your principal derivative is my principle that is true in certain context and to a certain observed level, but that we can't be sure is entirely correct.

Your principle, as far as I understand, is an abstract concept equivalent to my "everything"; understanding everything is my abstract term for knowing every single thing about something so that no matter the problem you are presented with, you are able to give an answer without any error, and the way you explained it to me, that is the same for your principles.

For that reason, those principles, as I see it, cannot be reached with confidence that there is nothing more to discover, because no matter how much you see and how much you know, there is always something you have yet to experience.

As I'm sitting here writing this reply, the only thing I see is that I attempt to explain what I see wrong in your post, and you, who

in teaching others, I am sincere.

You dismiss this and seeing my "principle",

you jump on it immediately sans fully embracing the context.

, and refuse to elaborate at all, instead presenting me with a definition that can be interpreted in various ways and that I have to guess what exactly means to you.


If this sounds rude, then excuse me but I am pissed and I'm not putting in the effort to filter this.

 

[SailusGebel]

Oh my god. Principles are absolute fundamental bases of existence.

Principals (Spelled Differently) are temporary rules that only work while digesting a certain unique context that will not exactly be experienced again.

You know, I emphasized the difference clearly with italics & paragraph-breaking?

You have also said something else.... but I am tired. I said so much with so much careful thought, and as soon as I mention 'temporary rules' you jump on it immediately sans fully embracing the context.

I don't wanna talk with you anymore... it hurts

If there isn't an ultimate frame, then there aren't any ultimate dynamic experiences that can be derived from it either.

The reality is: existence does indeed function intelligibly.

The proof is that we can grapple with ideas here while seeking the truth. If after obtaining the truth, it becomes obsolete completely where not even a fundamental concept spanning eternity has any purchase because of it (insignificant truth builds up into significant truth), then existence would really be just a nonabsolute gibberish land.

This reminds me of Kant: he said there was a Phenomenal World which meant that nothing could be discerned as really true | and a Noumenal World (similar to Plato's World Of Ideal Forms) where all the real truth existed _ Both worlds existed simultaneously in the place where we live, and being subject to both of them means that since they have equal influence we can never truly know anything despite truth being possible.

This is actually the most popular metaphysics in philosophy departments for the last century.

But the obvious hilarious nonsense in it is that it's very concept or reality itself requires you to accept it on faith in order to believe it; because according to it's content, truly understanding with certainty that this is how the world works is impossible. But since that is the case, why wouldn't I accept on reason that a philosophy that tries convincing you of something while acknowledging that convincing isn't actually possible is fucking garbage?

I really appreciate that you are giving me exactly the type of reasonable rebuttal that I hoped for & expected.

Regarding "respecting nature" rather than 'commanding' it, in elementary school I was taught that personification of not-a-person existents was nonlogical. However when I say command or obey I (& Francis Bacon) mean that harmony or balance with nature can only sensibly translate into acknowledging that it is not sentient but rather the fuel for growing individual sentience (though a sentient being may be born of the remnants eventually) so to be able to arrange it in the ideal way to advance your existence you must reflect the absolute(s) within yourself to their counterpart data in nature according to how it is situated in the unique context of that instance ~ then you may organize it in your image since you have related it's underpinnings with your own structure; the metaphor "commanding" is when you sort it, which is solely available after you "obey" or have sussed-out the kind of structure you are dealing with & extracting the relevant interesting data in order to form it into ideas. (I would tell you that ideas are physical, the most important fundamental of who you are, since there is no dichotomy between mental & physical states {the flesh × mind}.)

That which exists possesses identity.
To have identity means a form to make use of it.
A form is the actualizing state of a physical entity.
Hence, all is physical.

Physics = absolute fabric of reality.

Well, psychological motivations & content is the operating driver of whatever manifestations occur. (Though not-sentient existence must be comprehended from the perspective of being not-sentient {personification can only be metaphoric}.)

Nobody sensible ever said that esoteric & profound deep lasting meanings must be easy to grasp, but I can attest to the results: they are worth the effort.

In a very enjoyable story-format you can have access to a great density thereof if you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Just to mention that this is very relevant to making wonderful stories to experience.

No.

 

[someawkwardflame]

As someone who seems to put a lot of value in intellect you seem to fail at that immediate marker: the ability to be succinct when explaining complex matter.

Verbosity can be excused when diving into detailed discussion to convince others and I suppose you have managed to convince certain everyone that you are entirely unlikeable. Well done.

 

[QuercusMalus]