Catholic Church in Spain Steals 300,000 Babies

[Tiribulus]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?
[/quote]

Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]

I disagree. Not part of the natural world (supernatural) makes it entirely faith. Absolute means not subject to change. It is, but only because it is nothing. It is only as absolute as it is utterly meaningless.
[/quote]
The opposite is true.

Addition cannot change, because addition has no actual meaning. Change requires existence. I can as easily define addition that makes 2+2 equal 11 in Duce-gebra and have it be equally true and absolute as algebra. BUT, if we were to get together and discuss and pursue the knowledge of duce-gebra, it would not be a pursuit of fact or the universe.

I think you confuse absolute with fact. [/quote]

You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of things you are not in control of, which is pretty much everything. You can make 2+2 equal 11 if you want to, but no matter how hard you try it’s still wrong. You cannot drive 11 from 2 things added to 2 other things, be they physical or metaphysical. The shapes used in math are just symbols that represent things. The symbols do not matter, the definition of them demands them be what they are. These are not arbitrary, but completely absolute. 2 no matter how it’s represented, or what it represents, is still 2 and if you add another 2 to it, you have 4.
The physical is not absolute, the metaphysical is.[/quote]

Wrong. Pure math, as you were discussing and specified, does not related to physical things. 2+2 is defined as equaling 4 arbitrarily in pure math. There is no such thing as an integer or addition in the real world.

That is irrelevant. An integer is true by definition. Whether nature or not represents it does not matter. The physical world is not provable. Deductive realities are. Therefore integers are true by definition. Metaphysics trumps physical existence every time.

If, as you seem to be doing here, relating math to physical objects, you are venturing into other branches of science.

Science is based on observation and correlation relationships which makes them much less reliable. You cannot prove physical realities, you can only manage them to a high degree of correlation.

You have contradicted yourself. You have defined math as purely abstract and absolute, then set about to prove it by physical means. You are moving the playing field. We must either discus, as I first stated, abstract (absolute) math, or physical science. When you assign objects to number or assign actions to operations, your system is provable, but it also becomes disprovable and none-absolute. In my head 2 objects + 2 objects results in 11 objects. In abstract (pure) math, you cannot prove or disprove that statement. It is only defined as untrue by the invented rules of mathematics. It is not as you assert, proven untrue.

Incorrect. Empirical examples can be used to imply deductive realities, but they are not deductive realities in themselves. It’s only a means of explanation. Further, I stated that what you are counting doesn’t matter if it’s represented by physical or metaphysical reality. The representation does not matter, it’s own nature is all that does. And deductive truths are necessarily true and can only be discerned through logic. If nature disagrees then nature is wrong. That is the strength of deductive logic, it supersedes everything.

If you wish to delve into the math of the physical sciences, I ask this, what is the physical definition of adding 2 things together?

It’s simply a matter of grouping. They don’t even have to be local to one another to be grouped.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]

I disagree. Not part of the natural world (supernatural) makes it entirely faith. Absolute means not subject to change. It is, but only because it is nothing. It is only as absolute as it is utterly meaningless.
[/quote]
The opposite is true.

Addition cannot change, because addition has no actual meaning. Change requires existence. I can as easily define addition that makes 2+2 equal 11 in Duce-gebra and have it be equally true and absolute as algebra. BUT, if we were to get together and discuss and pursue the knowledge of duce-gebra, it would not be a pursuit of fact or the universe.

I think you confuse absolute with fact. [/quote]

You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of things you are not in control of, which is pretty much everything. You can make 2+2 equal 11 if you want to, but no matter how hard you try it’s still wrong. You cannot drive 11 from 2 things added to 2 other things, be they physical or metaphysical. The shapes used in math are just symbols that represent things. The symbols do not matter, the definition of them demands them be what they are. These are not arbitrary, but completely absolute. 2 no matter how it’s represented, or what it represents, is still 2 and if you add another 2 to it, you have 4.
The physical is not absolute, the metaphysical is.[/quote]

Wrong. Pure math, as you were discussing and specified, does not related to physical things. 2+2 is defined as equaling 4 arbitrarily in pure math. There is no such thing as an integer or addition in the real world.

That is irrelevant. An integer is true by definition. Whether nature or not represents it does not matter. The physical world is not provable. Deductive realities are. Therefore integers are true by definition. Metaphysics trumps physical existence every time.

If, as you seem to be doing here, relating math to physical objects, you are venturing into other branches of science.

Science is based on observation and correlation relationships which makes them much less reliable. You cannot prove physical realities, you can only manage them to a high degree of correlation.

You have contradicted yourself. You have defined math as purely abstract and absolute, then set about to prove it by physical means. You are moving the playing field. We must either discus, as I first stated, abstract (absolute) math, or physical science. When you assign objects to number or assign actions to operations, your system is provable, but it also becomes disprovable and none-absolute. In my head 2 objects + 2 objects results in 11 objects. In abstract (pure) math, you cannot prove or disprove that statement. It is only defined as untrue by the invented rules of mathematics. It is not as you assert, proven untrue.

Incorrect. Empirical examples can be used to imply deductive realities, but they are not deductive realities in themselves. It’s only a means of explanation. Further, I stated that what you are counting doesn’t matter if it’s represented by physical or metaphysical reality. The representation does not matter, it’s own nature is all that does. And deductive truths are necessarily true and can only be discerned through logic. If nature disagrees then nature is wrong. That is the strength of deductive logic, it supersedes everything.

If you wish to delve into the math of the physical sciences, I ask this, what is the physical definition of adding 2 things together?

It’s simply a matter of grouping. They don’t even have to be local to one another to be grouped.
[/quote]

No, there is no such thing as abstract reality. There is no truth to an integer. It’s only true if we both agree it is. logically, in the metaphysical world I see 2 and 2 making 11. Without referring the the physical rules of the universe (non-abstract) you cannot demonstrate 2+2 to equal 4. Being true by definition means that first there is no evidence for it, and 2 I can render it useless by disagreeing with the definition.

There is no truth to math outside of it’s relation to the physical universe. BUT it’s relation to the universe is relative. It’s no more truth than the existence of a language after removing it’s relationship the the physical. Sure, the word “rose” exists in the abstract sense, but if take away the relationship to the actual flower, it’s nonsense.

I’d like to hear your logical reasoning step by step. Go from nothing, to the addition of integers completely in the abstract.

“It’s simply a matter of grouping. They don’t even have to be local to one another to be grouped.”

You have substituted one abstract word for another. What does it mean in the physical universe to add (group) something(s).

[DoubleDuce]

I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim. [/quote]

I said nothing of the existence (it would depend on what you mean by existence). I said metaphysics isn’t part of reality.

If I have a bad dream and wake up, I’d say to myself “thank goodness it wasn’t real”. But in the abstract sense, monsters, unicorns, and the tooth fairy exist as ideas.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim. [/quote]

I said nothing of the existence (it would depend on what you mean by existence). I said metaphysics isn’t part of reality.

If I have a bad dream and wake up, I’d say to myself “thank goodness it wasn’t real”. But in the abstract sense, monsters, unicorns, and the tooth fairy exist as ideas.[/quote]

Metaphysics is kind of a large hill to climb at first, but once you understand it it’s really pretty simple and quite logical.

The abstracts in your dream scenario do exist, as a dream. It doesn’t make them a physical reality, but objects of your dream do exist as a dream. In other words, just because monsters are not a physical reality, doesn’t mean your dream did not have those objects.

I’ll see if I can be concise on what I mean that metaphysics is the boss, or the core essence of reality or existence. Science is a favorite way of demonstrating it. Let’s take an atom. An atom, by definition consists of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that alone isn’t what an atom is, it also requires electromagnetism, space and movement. The atom follows a set of “laws” that govern it. Further the atom cannot “break the law” or it ceases to be an atom. The laws that govern and define the atom make it what it is, more so that what it’s composed of. The components are one thing, but if it doesn’t follow the law, it’s not an atom. The laws that govern the atom are metaphysical. They cannot be sensed in any way, we derived their existence by the behavior an atom displays. So there are two parts to the atom, the physical components, and the metaphysical components that make it what it is. Now, the laws that govern the atom exist without the atom existing, but the atom cannot exist without the laws that govern it. This makes the atom subject to it’s metaphysical properties, while the metaphysical properties are not subject to the physical components of the atom. The metaphysical can exist without the physical, but the physical cannot exist without the metaphysical.
Such is the case with any thing physical. All physical objects have a duel nature, the physical affect, and the metaphysics that make it what it is.

The monsters in your dream don’t have to exist physically, but if they did, they would be governed by the properties of what monsters are as defined by your dream.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim. [/quote]

I said nothing of the existence (it would depend on what you mean by existence). I said metaphysics isn’t part of reality.

If I have a bad dream and wake up, I’d say to myself “thank goodness it wasn’t real”. But in the abstract sense, monsters, unicorns, and the tooth fairy exist as ideas.[/quote]

Metaphysics is kind of a large hill to climb at first, but once you understand it it’s really pretty simple and quite logical.

The abstracts in your dream scenario do exist, as a dream. It doesn’t make them a physical reality, but objects of your dream do exist as a dream. In other words, just because monsters are not a physical reality, doesn’t mean your dream did not have those objects.

I’ll see if I can be concise on what I mean that metaphysics is the boss, or the core essence of reality or existence. Science is a favorite way of demonstrating it. Let’s take an atom. An atom, by definition consists of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that alone isn’t what an atom is, it also requires electromagnetism, space and movement. The atom follows a set of “laws” that govern it. Further the atom cannot “break the law” or it ceases to be an atom. The laws that govern and define the atom make it what it is, more so that what it’s composed of. The components are one thing, but if it doesn’t follow the law, it’s not an atom. The laws that govern the atom are metaphysical. They cannot be sensed in any way, we derived their existence by the behavior an atom displays. So there are two parts to the atom, the physical components, and the metaphysical components that make it what it is. Now, the laws that govern the atom exist without the atom existing, but the atom cannot exist without the laws that govern it. This makes the atom subject to it’s metaphysical properties, while the metaphysical properties are not subject to the physical components of the atom. The metaphysical can exist without the physical, but the physical cannot exist without the metaphysical.
Such is the case with any thing physical. All physical objects have a duel nature, the physical affect, and the metaphysics that make it what it is.

The monsters in your dream don’t have to exist physically, but if they did, they would be governed by the properties of what monsters are as defined by your dream.[/quote]

Exactly. In my dream where 2+2 resulted in 11. BUT here’s the rub. Why do you assume the universe is analytic, or even consistent for that matter? We cannot even measure or observe aspects of atoms. And some aspects are even considered un-measuable and un-knowable. The functions of at least parts of atoms could be entirely random and ungoverned.

You have essentially gotten down to the first basic axiom of science. That the universe is governed by analytical, unchanging, laws. That is not self evident and it cannot be logically derived. It is taken on faith by necessity.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]

lol.

Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?

Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical.

[VTBalla34]

A professor stood before his engineering class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was, full of golf balls, dust, air, etc.

The professor confirmed that he wasn’t lecturing to a bunch of dumb shit philosophy students, and proceeded on with his class.

[csulli]

Lol, reminds me of the glass half full joke.

Optimist sees a glass that is half full.

Pessimist sees a glass that is half empty.

Engineer sees a glass that is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]

lol.

Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?

Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]

lol.

Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?

Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.
[/quote]

Seems the other way around to me.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim. [/quote]

I said nothing of the existence (it would depend on what you mean by existence). I said metaphysics isn’t part of reality.

If I have a bad dream and wake up, I’d say to myself “thank goodness it wasn’t real”. But in the abstract sense, monsters, unicorns, and the tooth fairy exist as ideas.[/quote]

Metaphysics is kind of a large hill to climb at first, but once you understand it it’s really pretty simple and quite logical.

The abstracts in your dream scenario do exist, as a dream. It doesn’t make them a physical reality, but objects of your dream do exist as a dream. In other words, just because monsters are not a physical reality, doesn’t mean your dream did not have those objects.

I’ll see if I can be concise on what I mean that metaphysics is the boss, or the core essence of reality or existence. Science is a favorite way of demonstrating it. Let’s take an atom. An atom, by definition consists of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that alone isn’t what an atom is, it also requires electromagnetism, space and movement. The atom follows a set of “laws” that govern it. Further the atom cannot “break the law” or it ceases to be an atom. The laws that govern and define the atom make it what it is, more so that what it’s composed of. The components are one thing, but if it doesn’t follow the law, it’s not an atom. The laws that govern the atom are metaphysical. They cannot be sensed in any way, we derived their existence by the behavior an atom displays. So there are two parts to the atom, the physical components, and the metaphysical components that make it what it is. Now, the laws that govern the atom exist without the atom existing, but the atom cannot exist without the laws that govern it. This makes the atom subject to it’s metaphysical properties, while the metaphysical properties are not subject to the physical components of the atom. The metaphysical can exist without the physical, but the physical cannot exist without the metaphysical.
Such is the case with any thing physical. All physical objects have a duel nature, the physical affect, and the metaphysics that make it what it is.

The monsters in your dream don’t have to exist physically, but if they did, they would be governed by the properties of what monsters are as defined by your dream.[/quote]

Exactly. In my dream where 2+2 resulted in 11.
[/quote]
Your dream is wrong. You cannot make things what they are. These are two separate areas with in metaphysics. One is an object created in a mind from parts of previously existing things assembled in a unique way, the other is a higher level where there is a governance.

BUT here’s the rub. Why do you assume the universe is analytic, or even consistent for that matter? We cannot even measure or observe aspects of atoms. And some aspects are even considered un-measuable and un-knowable. The functions of at least parts of atoms could be entirely random and ungoverned.

I didn’t assume anything. I used the atom example using only things we know about the atom and what it must have, definitionally, to be one. I was not addressing everything about an atom. I was using a physical object to illustrate a metaphysical principle.

You have essentially gotten down to the first basic axiom of science. That the universe is governed by analytical, unchanging, laws. That is not self evident and it cannot be logically derived. It is taken on faith by necessity.

I wasn’t talking about science, I was talking about metaphysics. I was using a scientific example to describe a metaphysical principle. I have been stumping this whole time, that physical reality is less real, because it’s not provable. We cannot even prove the universe exists, only that it likely does. This is the difference between empirical and deductive logic. Empirical deals with the physical, it relies on correlation and infers causal relationships. Deductive logic is absolute. It’s either 100% right or 100% wrong, there is no grey area.

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]

I’m impressed…

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]

lol.

Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?

Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]

Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.

Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]I’m impressed…[/quote]Well thank you Pat. I’m hoping maybe you and I can communicate in a more productive manner going forward. I commented on your question about drop sets in the T-Cell a while back too btw.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can point specifically where you are wrong though. The term “metaphysical reality” is an oxymoron. [/quote]

Are you saying metaphysical objects do not exist? That’s a bold statement, better be ready to back that up. You got 2000 years of philosophical inquiry countering that claim. [/quote]

I said nothing of the existence (it would depend on what you mean by existence). I said metaphysics isn’t part of reality.

If I have a bad dream and wake up, I’d say to myself “thank goodness it wasn’t real”. But in the abstract sense, monsters, unicorns, and the tooth fairy exist as ideas.[/quote]

Metaphysics is kind of a large hill to climb at first, but once you understand it it’s really pretty simple and quite logical.

The abstracts in your dream scenario do exist, as a dream. It doesn’t make them a physical reality, but objects of your dream do exist as a dream. In other words, just because monsters are not a physical reality, doesn’t mean your dream did not have those objects.

I’ll see if I can be concise on what I mean that metaphysics is the boss, or the core essence of reality or existence. Science is a favorite way of demonstrating it. Let’s take an atom. An atom, by definition consists of protons, neutrons and electrons. But that alone isn’t what an atom is, it also requires electromagnetism, space and movement. The atom follows a set of “laws” that govern it. Further the atom cannot “break the law” or it ceases to be an atom. The laws that govern and define the atom make it what it is, more so that what it’s composed of. The components are one thing, but if it doesn’t follow the law, it’s not an atom. The laws that govern the atom are metaphysical. They cannot be sensed in any way, we derived their existence by the behavior an atom displays. So there are two parts to the atom, the physical components, and the metaphysical components that make it what it is. Now, the laws that govern the atom exist without the atom existing, but the atom cannot exist without the laws that govern it. This makes the atom subject to it’s metaphysical properties, while the metaphysical properties are not subject to the physical components of the atom. The metaphysical can exist without the physical, but the physical cannot exist without the metaphysical.
Such is the case with any thing physical. All physical objects have a duel nature, the physical affect, and the metaphysics that make it what it is.

The monsters in your dream don’t have to exist physically, but if they did, they would be governed by the properties of what monsters are as defined by your dream.[/quote]

Exactly. In my dream where 2+2 resulted in 11.
[/quote]
Your dream is wrong. You cannot make things what they are. These are two separate areas with in metaphysics. One is an object created in a mind from parts of previously existing things assembled in a unique way, the other is a higher level where there is a governance.

BUT here’s the rub. Why do you assume the universe is analytic, or even consistent for that matter? We cannot even measure or observe aspects of atoms. And some aspects are even considered un-measuable and un-knowable. The functions of at least parts of atoms could be entirely random and ungoverned.

I didn’t assume anything. I used the atom example using only things we know about the atom and what it must have, definitionally, to be one. I was not addressing everything about an atom. I was using a physical object to illustrate a metaphysical principle.

You have essentially gotten down to the first basic axiom of science. That the universe is governed by analytical, unchanging, laws. That is not self evident and it cannot be logically derived. It is taken on faith by necessity.

I wasn’t talking about science, I was talking about metaphysics. I was using a scientific example to describe a metaphysical principle. I have been stumping this whole time, that physical reality is less real, because it’s not provable. We cannot even prove the universe exists, only that it likely does. This is the difference between empirical and deductive logic. Empirical deals with the physical, it relies on correlation and infers causal relationships. Deductive logic is absolute. It’s either 100% right or 100% wrong, there is no grey area. [/quote]

How can my dream be wrong? Prove it to me. You cannot prove metaphysic concepts either.

And yes, you did make the assumption things don’t change. You must acknowledge that it is possible that tomorrow planets could behave like quantum particles and quantum mechanics could behave like general relativity. There is no proof that the behavior of what we call an atom will behave the same way tomorrow. And no proof that 2 atoms will have consistent behavior. The metaphysical aspects of Items aren’t proven.

2+2=11 exists as a thing the exact same way the monster in my dream does. You seemed to think that the monster existed abstractly with governing rules, though those rules ran contrary to the rules of the universe (say it could teleport). Why then can that be true, but my dream where 2 and 2 equal 11 is wrong? I acknowledge that it runs contrary to the behavior of the universe, BUT as an abstract idea you cannot bind it to the rules of something it is expressly external to.

But you still haven’t answered me, what does it mean to add?