****wits posting mindless religious drivel in SMP will do that.

It's not a meaningful question. What does it mean for 1 to have "meaning"?

You appear to be asking this:

"In a system that artificially restricted to only allowing two ways of representing state, can data be represented without having the second way of representing state?"

The answer to that is yes.
I answered your question and all of its implications. You are so dog-stupid from reading this loser Watts you didn't even understand that the answer I gave answered your question. This is our conversation, broken down for the daft (you):

Watts: The inverse is required for meaning
Me: No it isn't. Only variation is
You: In a system of two items only, are both items required for one item to mean something?
Me: The examples he gave were not two-state systems, so why would you do something daft like bring it back to two-state systems in attempt to rescue your hero from his own comedic stupidity? His statement is false for other than binary systems (i.e. all systems of interest and all of his examples), so what does your question have to do with anything?
You: Philosophy is not trying to trick you. Answer my question
Me: The answer is no, both aren't required. Even your question doesn't rescue Watts from his monumental stupidity.

11 being different to 1 gives meaning to 1. Correct. The source of that meaning is in the - difference (contrast) - between the two.

For example: substitute 0 for 11 and you have binary code just the same, alternating between 1 and 11 instead of 0 and 1. This code however would be less meaningful than code that also involves combinations of 0s - but meaningful nonetheless. Regardless, point being: it is the difference (contrast) between two things that generates meaning.

No ****ing **** genius. That's exactly what I said. That's the "trivially true" part of Watt's statement that he falls back on; it is a boring pointless truism that you figure out at about the age of 8. Like I said, his statement does two things:

- Make a bold and interesting and utterly false assertion
- Have a boring truism to fall back on when called on it.

That's precisely what you're doing now. The sign of a fraud philosopher if ever I saw one. I can't believe you are so mindless as to buy into this **** let alone post it here.

Variation between what?

Two or more things. Two being the minimal required.
We're saying the same thing but you're not seeing it yet.

To have meaning you need difference that is true. You need to exist in order to have a discussion ie be different than vacuum. You need physics to have any math discussion too. But dont see the world in binary terms necessarily. Remain free to where the observations and math take you. Ie do not have worldviews like that guy that are not scientifically founded or if you do, you better have some logical arguments why you have them.

I don't believe im doing harm to anyone, least of all myself. Why are you both so adamant to have others believe exactly what you believe? Of what threat is some loony, alcoholic philosopher like Watts to you or your worldview? He's hardly taken seriously or understood by many to begin with.

It influences you that can have better positions on some issues . That is why i care. I wont force on anyone positions that are not very well established. I wont force them also in any other way than strong suggestion. You are free to believe in whatever you enjoy and makes sense to you.

I just sense that you both feel threatened somehow. The agitation of ToothSayer is unwarranted and your insistence on 'the method' implies you feel that there's a threat to science here or something. I don't think it's a threat at all. Watts and Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were all loony alcoholics. You can relax.

I've saved my toenail clippings for years, which makes the parts greater than the whole.

I also only know what a chicken sandwich is because I once encountered a cat.

If all you knew were chicken sandwiches you'd likely just call them - sandwiches. Why specify what type unless there are other types?

That would be a good question had I also derived some linguistics from the cat.

Linguistics adhere to logical rules, just the same as binary, just as the same as statistics. One of which being: definition by contrast.

Alan Watts may be less of a pretzel head than Rudolf Steiner. Watts sold more books than Steiner for example. I read some of Watt's drivel when I was in High School, on the recommendation of some hippies. He was big in the 60's and 70's amongst the younger set and the Bay Area California Cool and the Beat Guys, 50's, (Kerouac) and some east coast hippies. I forget what book I read that I picked up at a second hand store. It was rather silly, almost as silly has the Book of Daniel, but less interesting. I'll take the Bible any day over Watts or Steiner. They are third rate hacks. The Bible kicks their ass from every angle.

Sure. Chicken sandwiches aren't much like cats at all.

I have two cats. One, a female, recently neutered, is named after the painter Goya. The other, a kitten, also a female, is named Winston Churchill.

Goya does not take much to chicken. Winston loves chicken. Neither cat resembles a Chicken Sandwich.

As far as I can make out neither cat can read - so they are uninfluenced by Alan Watts, Rudolf Steiner, or The Bible. They are better animals for it.

Proliferation of disapproval of scientific reasoning threatens a better future. Other than that i am not threatened by anything here. Caring is caring for a better discussion or methods not a fear of anything.

Forum clearly hasn't done enough LSD ^_^

Pragmatic beliefs on very high.

This guy knows what's up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

He probably knows what's down as well....and that you can't have up without down.

A, and probably not the only difficulty in this thread, is the use of polarities as if the world acts abstractly without end. Therefore the eastern approach becomes up/down, yin/yang, good/bad , etc..,. for the western thought process and becomes merely a perspective lost, without any basis in reality.

The only approach to the realities involved is to scientifically look at the world/cosmos and note to clarify the activities of nature and man. The intellect is an approach which classifies and "breaks down" the general and that is why it is called critical thinking and can't help much into bringing the parts together again.

And so, one can approach nature scientifically and objectively , as an example, in one's observation of the rainbow.

Going with the Goethean approach to the rainbow he would see the "ur phenomenon" in the fact that there is a reverse rainbow associated with each major rainbow. this rainbow is the mirror image of the one naturally seen with the colors in reverse order.

The fact here is that nature is here working in a polaric manner and the one rainbow is not and should not be separated or studied without the other; ergo, a polarity of nature.

Now, this may seem simplistic to some but the underlying theme here is the study of science working with what is known and tying connections from one reality to another without the need to hypothesize an undercurrent of items such as atoms and molecules.

This work is the work of the science of the phenomenon which does not posit the "hidden" and then attempt to prove the same. Nature speaks and our job is to listen without preconditions; that is the nature of science.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...CC&FORM=IQFRBA

Going along with the problem, if one then proceeds to declare that "polarities rule", using the rainbows as an example, intellectually and forever, we have left the real and lost our substance of study. This then means nothing in our study of the world and man who is certainly included within the same.

YOu can't take this individual thought of opposites and assume the world has been spoken to and listened to appropriately. One must ameliorate our stance and actively approach nature as the next event arises.

Are you crediting/blaming LSD for your ramblings?

Vee, continue to choose feeling good instead of truth. We all haven't that luxury. Didn't you mention somewhere your IQ isn't very high? Maybe that's enabling it?

Correction; I wrote "major" rainbow but didn't mean to imply the reverse rainbow was present in only certain rainbows; it is present in all rainbows but more difficult to see, it quite often being a faint impression in the sky.

It's odd that in base ten there's a two but no ten while in base 2 there's a 10 but no 2.


PairTheBoard

Philosophy like that belongs here, for one, because it agitates scientism.

Awwwwwww, our savior from the wilds of free thinking. Lol.