Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:49 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Metaphysical Confusion
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
101:3.1 ...Religion is so vital that it persists in the absence of learning. It lives in spite of its contamination with erroneous cosmologies and false philosophies; it survives even the confusion of metaphysics. In and through all the historic vicissitudes...

103:6.14 ... unfortunate as to lean upon metaphysics, it unfailingly becomes skeptical, confused. In past ages, most of man's knowledge and intellectual evaluations have fallen into one of these three distortions of perception. Philosophy dare not project its...

103:6.7 ... metaphysics has proved more confusing than illuminating. Metaphysics stands for man's well-meant but futile effort to compensate for the absence of the mota of morontia.... have recognized the desirability of having some method of reconciling the interplay between the widely separated domains of science and religion; and metaphysics is the result of man's unavailing attempt to span this well-recognized chasm. But human...

The following is an essay I have written in an attempt to address human metaphysics and its confusion. I could not present the entire exposition due to limits of text capacity. More will follow. I invite comments, criticisms, opposition and any and all questions. Thanks. :smile:


Attachments:
Chat 1 part 1.rtfd.zip [98.89 KiB]
Downloaded 201 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
This attachment is the next part of this first of many essays. Thanks. :smile:


Attachments:
Ch 1 Part 2 of 3.rtfd.zip [16.84 KiB]
Downloaded 204 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
The next part. :smile:


Attachments:
Next.rtfd.zip [161.27 KiB]
Downloaded 187 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Another part. Sorry, only 300 KB at a time max. :cry:


Attachments:
ALMOST.rtfd.zip [44.27 KiB]
Downloaded 193 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Hopefully the last. :smile:


Attachments:
Hope last.rtfd.zip [292.84 KiB]
Downloaded 187 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Johnnybones wrote:
… It seems that the foundational stones of Euclid’s edifice have turned to sand; quicksand. You must now understand that the Euclidean congruency theorems rest almost immediately on the Axioms. Having argued against the Axioms, there is no longer valid proof of the theorems and similar triangles. The proof of the validity that the construction for squaring a rectangle is essentially a reduction to Euclid’s axioms.
So called Euclidian geometry is a finite model. Euclidian points, lines, circles and infinity are all finite concepts and there actually can be multiple singular points and parallel infinite lines in a Euclidian geometry by definition. Whether or not parallel lines and multiple points exist in absolute reality is an entirely different question. But they do exist ideally in our finite orthogonal 'projection' of absolute reality. Euclidian geometry simply provides a (mathematical) description of finite space that works for most practical purposes. Any argument that Euclidian geometry is incompatible with the nature of absolute reality is meaningless..


Last edited by Bart on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:11 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
Johnny Bones - I've edited your files below into "pdf" file and zipped it for download. It should be small enough now.
Please open and examine, for accuracy.


Attachments:
Metaphysical Confusion.zip [260.92 KiB]
Downloaded 197 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:52 pm +0000
Posts: 13
Location: Sebastian, Florida
Caligastia: Thanks so much for combining into one file. Much better reading experience than the pasting together I had done in preparing to read it.

_________________
Urantia born, heaven bound;
Shack now, mansion later;
Guttermost to the uttermost.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Thank you Caligastia (never thought I'd be writing that :shock: ). It's perfect.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Bart wrote:
Johnnybones wrote:
… It seems that the foundational stones of Euclid’s edifice have turned to sand; quicksand. You must now understand that the Euclidean congruency theorems rest almost immediately on the Axioms. Having argued against the Axioms, there is no longer valid proof of the theorems and similar triangles. The proof of the validity that the construction for squaring a rectangle is essentially a reduction to Euclid’s axioms.
So called Euclidian geometry is a finite model. Euclidian points, lines, circles and infinity are all finite concepts and there actually can be multiple singular points and parallel infinite lines in a Euclidian geometry by definition. Whether or not parallel lines and multiple points exist in absolute reality is an entirely different question. But they do exist ideally in our finite orthogonal 'projection' of absolute reality. Euclidian geometry simply provides a (mathematical) description of finite space that works for most practical purposes. Any argument that Euclidian geometry is incompatible with the nature of absolute reality is meaningless..





A metaphysical conundrum: Choose one.


1. A right triangle is an infinite and absolute reality.

2. A right triangle is an finite and sub-absolute reality.

3. Both #1 and #2 are correct.

4. Neither #1 nor #2 correct.


:smile: O:) :shock: 8) :!: :? :shock: :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Johnnybones wrote:
… A metaphysical conundrum: Choose one.

1. A right triangle is an infinite and absolute reality.

2. A right triangle is an finite and sub-absolute reality.

3. Both #1 and #2 are correct.

4. Neither #1 nor #2 correct.
This can be logically reduced to the question: is a 'right triangle' both an absolute (infinite) and sub-absolute (finite) reality or not? The answer is: no, it’s not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Bart wrote:
Johnnybones wrote:
… A metaphysical conundrum: Choose one.

1. A right triangle is an infinite and absolute reality.

2. A right triangle is an finite and sub-absolute reality.

3. Both #1 and #2 are correct.

4. Neither #1 nor #2 correct.
This can be logically reduced to the question: is a 'right triangle' both an absolute (infinite) and sub-absolute (finite) reality or not? The answer is: no, it’s not.



Ok, you did not choose #3. Is your choice #1, #2 or #4?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Johnnybones wrote:
Bart wrote:
Johnnybones wrote:
… A metaphysical conundrum: Choose one.

1. A right triangle is an infinite and absolute reality.

2. A right triangle is an finite and sub-absolute reality.

3. Both #1 and #2 are correct.

4. Neither #1 nor #2 correct.
This can be logically reduced to the question: is a 'right triangle' both an absolute (infinite) and sub-absolute (finite) reality or not? The answer is: no, it’s not.

Ok, you did not choose #3. Is your choice #1, #2 or #4?

#1 and #2 cannot be true or false independently, they are both true or both false. So the answer is #4.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
Bart wrote:
#1 and #2 cannot be true or false independently, they are both true or both false. So the answer is #4.



You, Sir, have chosen wisely. :smile:

In recognizing that a right triangle is not a reality at all, one must draw the logical conclusion that a right triangle cannot represent a reality. This means that a right triangle cannot be a symbol (model) of reality nor be a tool to be used in defining or describing reality. Something that is not a reality cannot exist, even in the 'ideal'. Can geometry provide a description of finite space? Space moves, a triangle does not, nor is it infinite. :shock:

Where do we go from here with this fundamental metaphysical confusion? :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Johnnybones wrote:
… You, Sir, have chosen wisely. :smile:

In recognizing that a right triangle is not a reality at all, one must draw the logical conclusion that a right triangle cannot represent a reality. This means that a right triangle cannot be a symbol (model) of reality nor be a tool to be used in defining or describing reality. Something that is not a reality cannot exist, even in the 'ideal'. Can geometry provide a description of finite space? Space moves, a triangle does not, nor is it infinite. :shock:

Where do we go from here with this fundamental metaphysical confusion? :?:
Hm.. A right triangle and for that matter Euclidian geometry and all of science is an idea. If ideas are real then the correct choice must be #3. I’ve looked it up and although ideas may not occupy space, they are real ..
Quote:
118:3.7 All patterns of reality occupy space on the material levels, but spirit patterns only exist in relation to space; they do not occupy or displace space, neither do they contain it. But to us the master riddle of space pertains to the pattern of an idea. When we enter the mind domain, we encounter many a puzzle. Does the pattern—the reality—of an idea occupy space? We really do not know, albeit we are sure that an idea pattern does not contain space. But it would hardly be safe to postulate that the immaterial is always nonspatial.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group