And you Don Juan are the lucky guy who I answer to.
The soundness of the first proposition Inzababa, or any proposed proposition, does not rest on itself alone, but also into how it is related to the question as its context and to the tested patterns that are marked by our concepts and language. It will be valid on its own as long as it follows the structure of logical reasoning, but in relation to the question and its contexts, it may not be sound and true.
There is nothing more related to the question than how reality is defined (or what it "means). Without that framework you're talking for the sake of talking but not getting anywhere.
Ok then, can you tell how the 2nd and 3rd premises of the first if-then proposition are correct in relation to how symbols and concept and existence are commonly experienced? In this world when we are trying to answer a question if we have alternative proposition, if it has to be sound and useful, it must have premises that are constrained by what can be experienced either by senses or indirectly by using detectors. That is, since there is a reigning science at least, we cannot just define things the way we want it personally especially if the question is a concern of a group of people contemplating upon an answer. Of course we can define things, but we have to agree on proper definition. However, as you have said, some of the consequences of the first argument is obviously wrong, so how in the world would the first if-then proposition qualify as an alternative contributing to an answer in the question:
I told you TWO TIMES already.
And I'm sick and tired of people not even reading my posts, then asking what the **** I'm saying (this has happened more than a few times on these boards).
Now I realise this sounds vain, and arrogant, but seriously, **** read what I write I replied to that more than once.
False. Again. Soundness has to do with contexts. I can sense the second argument is more sound than the first because it has some coherence on context - that of creation of difference or distinction which necessarily becomes an influence to the immediate system where it emerges. Remember words and concepts used in definitions are not independent but has non-linguistic base and most of these are implied in them when used in context - that is, the map has to match the structure of the territory it tries to represent. However, your premises in the first proposition especially the two may not match the territory (reality) enough to cover relationships such as for example that of thought with energy by some incompleteness of definition and assumptions, thus it ceases to be sound and complete.
... no comment
False. Your second premise in the first proposition ignored the connection between thought and energy.
No it didn't.
listen, I wrote that ok? I know what I wrote yes? Not only that, but I rephrased more than once yes? Not only that but I re read it and it doesn't.
"yes it did"
"no it didn't"
"yes it did"
"no it didn't"
That will be an incomplete definition, reality also is a relation between the observer and the observed necessarily and so does matter and energy.
That's subjective reality, I'm talking "objective" reality...
Who told you that redundancy has to be avoided always? Who told you that redundancy will not be useful always?
No one, I can think for myself, and listen up I'll tell YOU.
Redundancy is to be avoided in the case of arguments because :
if you ask a question and I reply then you ask the same question what's the use in me replying in the first place?
You either take what I write into account or you don't. And if you don't, there is no point discussing anything.
If reality is defined by physical properties, then in order to be said as real, mathematical entities must have physical properties. .
Exactly what I am saying....
Existence cannot be restricted by reality definition and why would you do that if you owe your knowledge of reality to your existence
Either existence is composed (or "is") of physical properties or it's not.
For the last time, if it is, then it falls within that definition as being "real" and if it doesn't then it doesn't.
You sound like you're assuming that mathematical entities have no physical properties.
And on that note, good bye.